The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has confirmed that $20 million in funding originally allocated to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was used to produce and air pro-Trump television advertisements, according to federal budget records and multiple reports.
The ads, which aired nationally in recent weeks, feature President Donald Trump and echo themes from his 2024 presidential campaign. The White House has described them as public service announcements, though critics argue they function as political messaging. The revelation has prompted bipartisan scrutiny over the use of taxpayer funds for what some lawmakers call 'propaganda.'
Immediate Action & Core Facts
DHS acknowledged the funding shift after reports surfaced that the money was reallocated from CBP’s budget for 'commemorative events.' Federal contract data shows a $20 million contract awarded to the Maryland-based LMD Agency on September 20, 2026, one day after the funds were transferred. The ads began airing shortly thereafter.
The advertisements closely resemble Trump’s 2024 campaign messaging. One spot features Trump declaring, 'America will never be a communist country,' while another revives his 'final battle' rhetoric from the presidential race, attacking the 'deep state' and 'warmongers.' Both ads include disclaimers stating they were 'Paid for by the U.S. Government.'
Deeper Dive & Context
Funding Mechanism and Legal Questions
Federal records indicate the $20 million was moved into a CBP account for 'commemorative events' on September 19, 2026, under the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' passed in 2025. The bill allocated $6.2 billion for border security, including funds for 'commemorating efforts and events related to border security.'
Critics argue the reallocation violates the intended use of the funds, which were designated for border protection rather than political messaging. Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) have called for an investigation, stating in a letter to DHS that the department 'tapped money provided to CBP through Republicans' 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act.''
Political and Legal Responses
The revelation has drawn bipartisan criticism, with lawmakers from both parties questioning the propriety of using taxpayer dollars for ads that appear to promote the president.
- Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) acknowledged the ads conveyed 'a great message' but stated they 'shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars.'
- Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the practice 'the audacity to force Americans not only to watch his propaganda, but to pay for it.'
- Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) confirmed to reporters that the funds were 'taken out of funding that was supposed to be for Customs and Border Protection.'
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has also faced pressure, with the watchdog group Public Citizen filing a complaint over the use of government funds for what they describe as campaign-style messaging.
Content and Production Details
Sources familiar with the matter report that Trump personally selected images and video used in the ads, which include footage from his Mt. Rushmore speech marking America’s 250th anniversary. The ads were produced by LMD Agency, though the company has not publicly commented on the contract.
One ad, which aired during an NFL broadcast, featured Trump warning of a 'final battle' for the nation—a message nearly identical to his 2024 campaign ad, with the 'Trump 2024' branding removed and replaced by the government disclaimer.
Historical Precedent and CBP’s Role
CBP has a history of using taxpayer funds for advertising campaigns, including millions spent on ads discouraging illegal immigration. However, the recent ads mark a departure from the agency’s traditional messaging, focusing instead on promoting the president’s political agenda.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the source of the federal funds, and subsequent coverage by NBC News, CNBC, and ABC News confirmed the details through federal records and anonymous sources.
Broader Implications
The controversy raises questions about the boundaries of government-funded communications during election seasons and whether agencies can legally repurpose funds for political messaging. Legal experts suggest the case could set a precedent for future scrutiny of federal advertising expenditures.
Lawmakers and advocacy groups are now calling for transparency measures and potential legislative fixes to prevent similar reallocations in the future. The DHS has not provided a detailed justification for the funding shift beyond citing the 'commemorative events' account designation.