Democrats Accuse White House of Using CBP Funds for Trump Ads
Left 100%
Center 0%
Right 0%
4 left · 0 center · 0 right
What happened
In October, ahead of the November midterm elections, the Trump administration aired television ads featuring President Donald Trump that the White House described as public service announcements. Reporting by The Wall Street Journal, later confirmed to NBC News by an official and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), said the ads were paid for with money intended for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, drawn from a CBP account in the 2025 reconciliation bill rather than through the regular appropriations process. Federal records show CBP awarded a $20 million, fully funded one-year contract on Sept. 20 to Maryland firm LMD Agency for a “National Media Campaign,” one day after the Office of Management and Budget released $20 million to CBP under a “Commemorative Events” line. Ad-tracking firm AdImpact estimated more than $1.2 million to $1.7 million had already been spent to air the spots, which include U.S. government paid-for disclaimers; one closely resembles a 2024 Trump campaign ad. Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee and Sens. Patty Murray and Chris Murphy called for scrutiny, while several Republican senators, including John Thune, Collins, and Thom Tillis, criticized using taxpayer money for the ads; the White House said the spots were educational and patriotic.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 4 articles
3 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared within the hour. Most articles credit The Wall Street Journal rather than reporting it themselves.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 3 of 4
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Sen. Susan Collins, The Wall Street Journal, Patty Murray, Chris Murphy and Sens. Patty Murray and Chris Murphy
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 4
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: official document, press release, on-record letter
- Credits another outlet 2 of 4
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: The Wall Street Journal
- Unnamed sources 3 of 4
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 29, 17:57 UTC by The Hill, with no named source. First named source within the hour, from NBC News. First document 1 hour later, from CNBC (official document).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
ONE-SIDED THIS WEEK.
Only left-leaning outlets have covered this story in the last two days;
Washington Examiner reported it on 2026-09-28.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning outlets had not covered this as of publication, so their readers miss that Customs and Border Protection money paid for television ads featuring President Trump. Left-leaning coverage reports the administration used CBP funds from the reconciliation bill for spots the White House describes as public service announcements. NBC News says Sen. Susan Collins confirmed the money was taken from funding that was supposed to be for Customs and Border Protection.
Left-leaning outlets split on the dollar scale of the buy. NBC News cites AdImpact's estimate of more than $1.7 million in airtime. CNBC reports a $20 million CBP award whose public record does not show it paid for these spots.
Did using CBP funds for ads that reuse campaign language violate the Hatch Act?
Bottom line
Right-leaning outlets have not reported that CBP money paid for Trump's television ads. NBC News found John Thune saying those spots "shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars."
The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Sen. Susan Collins confirmed the ads were paid from Customs and Border Protection funding in the reconciliation bill
- President Trump personally pushed for the ads and was involved in creating them
- One of the spots is nearly identical to a 2024 Trump campaign ad
- CBP awarded $20 million to LMD Agency on Sept. 20 for a National Media Campaign the day after OMB released commemorative-events funds
- Public Citizen asked the GAO and Office of Special Counsel to investigate alleged propaganda and Hatch Act violations
The Left View
The Hill, NBC News, and CNBC report Democratic appropriators accusing the White House of diverting CBP funds to air Trump-centered ads weeks before the midterms. They describe the spots as resembling campaign advertising—one nearly identical to a 2024 Trump ad, another attacking communism and the “deep state”—and note government paid-for disclaimers, a JMSN cease-and-desist over music, and AdImpact spend estimates. Coverage emphasizes bipartisan pushback: Thune said the message should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars; Collins confirmed the CBP/reconciliation source and that the administration bypassed appropriations; Tillis compared the ads to Viktor Orbán; Schumer called them propaganda. CNBC and NBC cite the WSJ on Trump’s personal involvement, the $20 million LMD contract and OMB release, Murray and Murphy’s letter alleging a $20 million DHS scheme, Public Citizen complaints to the FCC, FTC, GAO, and OSC over propaganda and Hatch Act issues, and a White House defense that the ads are unapologetically patriotic PSAs.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: named officials, a WSJ-originated funding account corroborated to NBC by an official and by Sen. Collins, public contracting records (a Sept. 20 CBP award of $20 million to LMD and a related OMB release), AdImpact spend figures, on-air disclaimers, and on-the-record comments from multiple senators in both parties. Established: the ads aired, they feature Trump and language overlapping his 2024 campaign, they were labeled as paid for by the U.S. government, and Republican as well as Democratic senators have objected to taxpayer financing. Alleged or not fully proven in the cited coverage: that the LMD contract paid for these specific ads; that $20 million was dedicated to the campaign (Murray/Murphy’s letter says it “appears” so); that the ads violate propaganda rules or the Hatch Act (watchdog complaints, not adjudicated findings); and the precise legal authority for using the reconciliation/CBP “Commemorative Events” account. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for: CBP, DHS, LMD, and White House comment tying or denying the contract to the spots; GAO, OSC, FCC, or FTC action; the full text of the appropriations/reconciliation restrictions Collins cited; and any additional media-buy or production records.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.