WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington on Wednesday stopped the Trump administration from making, airing or distributing a set of TV ads bought with $20 million in taxpayer money, six days before the Nov. 3 midterm elections.
The ruling came in a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan granted the committee a temporary restraining order and wrote in her opinion that the defendants “likely used public dollars to unlawfully finance a national media campaign in the final weeks before the November 2026 elections.”
Her order puts the budget office’s $20 million apportionment for the campaign on hold. Neither the Office of Management and Budget nor the Department of Homeland Security may develop or air the challenged ads, and both agencies must take all necessary steps to stop anyone else from distributing them, including authorized third parties.
The order lasts 14 days. The government has until Oct. 30 to file a status report confirming it has complied, and both sides must propose a schedule by Nov. 2 for the fight over a longer preliminary injunction.
Five ads are named: “The Country He Loves,” the “Maduro” ad, the “Final Battle” ad, the “Mount Rushmore” ad and the “American Military Power” ad. In total, the committee challenged at least 13 campaign-style ads, the opinion says.
The money moved in about a day. On Sept. 19, Customs and Border Protection asked the budget office at 6:15 p.m. for an extra $20 million, for commemorative events tied to border security under the law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill. Approval came at 7:50 p.m. The next day, Homeland Security signed a $20 million purchase order with Lepugh, Inc., an advertising agency that does business as LMD, for a national media campaign.
The first challenged ads aired on Sept. 23, each one stamped with the disclosure “Paid for by the U.S. Government.”
That spending is the heart of the case. Federal law says appropriated money may not be used “for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress.” AliKhan found the committee likely to succeed on its claim that the campaign broke that ban and other appropriations laws.
Trump had tried to head off the fight. On Oct. 5, he said he planned to pay for the ads himself, with money raised for MAGA Inc., his super PAC. The ads kept running with the government disclosure anyway, and AliKhan wrote that “the court is unpersuaded” by the administration’s assurances.
At the committee, Chair Ken Martin praised the decision in a statement.
“The Court just delivered a victory for the rule of law and for American taxpayers.”
The White House disagreed. An official told The Washington Sun the ruling was “moot,” said “The PSAs are being paid for by outside groups,” and added that administrations of both parties have used public service announcements to explain policy.
Two other lawsuits challenge the same campaign. In one of them, brought by Common Cause, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon in New York blocked the government from using taxpayer funds to pay broadcast fees for the ads, and the government agreed to extend that order through Nov. 20, AliKhan noted.
Have something to promote?
Bring your business, services or event to our readers.