Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization, has asked the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission to halt broadcast of several advertisements that appear to use federal funds for political promotion. The group argues the ads breach statutes that ban taxpayer-financed propaganda and limit political activity by federal employees.
In a formal complaint filed on September 23, 2026, Public Citizen pointed to a commercial titled "The Final Battle" as the most recent example. The spot features former President Donald Trump walking down a corridor in black-and-white footage, accompanied by audio stating, "This is the final battle. With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state. We will expel the warmongers from our government." A caption at the bottom reads, "Paid for by the US government."
The same video and voiceover were previously used in a campaign advertisement released during the 2024 election cycle, when the funding came from Trump’s campaign committee. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the current version was financed with Department of Homeland Security money after Trump personally directed its production. Additional ads in the series include statements such as "America will never be a communist country" and "the United States of America is the most successful, most accomplished, most exceptional nation ever to exist in human history."
Public Citizen’s letter to the FCC and FTC urges the agencies to require broadcasters to cease airing the spots, which it says were aired during NBC’s Saturday Night Live, Fox News Sunday, and multiple college and professional football games over the weekend. The organization cited an estimate from analytics firm AdImpact indicating that more than $1.7 million in federal funds have already been spent on airtime for these advertisements.
Senate Democrats recently sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin alleging that President Trump is illegally using public tax dollars to fund what they describe as government propaganda. The letter referenced $20 million in DHS funds allocated through the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” for border-security commemorative events, and said the administration’s use of those resources for political messaging violates longstanding legal prohibitions.
Federal law restricts the use of appropriated funds for propaganda, self-aggrandizement, or partisan political advertising. Public Citizen argues that the ads do not qualify as public service announcements because they do not inform the public about a specific government program. Instead, the group says the messaging is intended to enhance Donald Trump’s public image and bolster his political party ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Separately, Public Citizen filed complaints with the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Special Counsel, alleging violations of federal statutes that prohibit the use of government resources for political purposes (5 U.S.C. §3107 and related appropriations provisions) and the Hatch Act, which limits certain political activities by federal employees. While the Hatch Act does not apply to the president, the organization contends that White House staff used government infrastructure to create and distribute the ads for partisan ends.
The Federal Communications Commission’s equal-time rule, which prevents broadcasters from censoring or rejecting political ads sponsored by legally qualified candidates, does not apply in this case, according to Public Citizen. The group maintains that broadcasters could be held liable for airing advertisements that contravene federal law, even when the ads are not tied to an active campaign.
When approached by Ars Technica, the GAO declined to comment on the complaint, stating that its work is typically initiated by congressional requests or mandated by statute. The Office of Special Counsel acknowledged receipt of the letter but provided no further response.
Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) has publicly suggested that the ads may constitute a felony involving the theft or conversion of government property for political use, and could represent a violation of the Hatch Act by any staff members who utilized official resources in their production. Several other lawmakers, including Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), have echoed the sentiment that taxpayer funds should not be used to promote any political figure, regardless of party affiliation.
Media companies appear to be navigating heightened scrutiny. Disney, which owns ABC, is currently involved in an FCC proceeding that could affect the renewal of its broadcast licenses. In a related lawsuit, Disney asserted that threats from the FCC have influenced its editorial decisions. As a result, ABC’s program The View has not featured interviews with political candidates since the proceeding began, and television host Jimmy Kimmel released a planned interview with a Democratic candidate exclusively on YouTube to avoid potential regulatory fallout.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has a history of confronting broadcasters who decline to air content favored by the administration. Analysts note that his recent actions suggest a pattern of using regulatory pressure against stations that resist carrying administration-backed messaging. FCC Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, who also endorsed Trump’s expanded use of executive authority over independent agencies, has not indicated whether he would support enforcement actions against broadcasters in this case.
Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) has publicly opposed the use of public funds for self-promotional advertising, stating that no public official should spend taxpayer money on personal promotion. He has previously criticized former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for a $220 million advertising effort, and has extended similar criticism to the current administration’s use of DHS funds for Trump-related ads.
The White House has defended the advertisements as public service announcements intended to remind Americans of the values and protections that underpin the nation. Officials told media outlets that the spots aim to reinforce patriotism and civic pride, particularly in relation to border security and national defense.
Public Citizen maintains that the ads fail to meet the criteria of public service announcements, as they do not reference specific programs, policies, or civic guidance. Instead, the organization says the content is designed to advance a political narrative ahead of upcoming elections.
The situation remains under review by multiple federal entities, and no formal enforcement action has been announced. Updates will be provided if the FCC, FTC, GAO, or OSC issue further statements regarding the complaints.