OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

White House Defends Taxpayer-Funded Pro-Trump TV Ads

7 sources · updated 2026-09-26
Left 75% Center 25% Right 0%
3 left · 1 center · 0 right

What happened

The Trump administration aired a 30-second television advertisement featuring President Donald Trump that carried the disclosure "Paid for by the U.S. Government." The spot matches a video uploaded to the White House YouTube page on September 13 titled "America Will Never Be a Communist Country" and ran on Fox News, Newsmax, and other networks; AdImpact estimated spending at about $14,000 at first and later about $430,000. Trump says in the ad that America will never be a communist country and will defeat communism, socialism, and Marxism; on-screen text includes "LARGEST TAX CUTS IN HISTORY," "REIGNITING AMERICAN MANUFACTURING," and "DEFEND LAW AND ORDER AND POLICE"; and the ad includes a clip of UFC CEO Dana White from the Republican National Convention. The White House called the spot a public service announcement that is "educational and unapologetically patriotic" and "clearly not political," adding that the president is not on the ballot and the ads have no call to action. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and other lawmakers from both parties objected, and singer JMSN condemned the use of his song as the soundtrack.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 4 articles

3 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report. White House press office denied part of it on the record.

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: White House spokesperson, JMSN and White House
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: market data, press statement, press release
Credits another outlet 0 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: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 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.
On-record denial 1
A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: White House press office (The Guardian, Sep 25, 23:02 UTC)
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 25, 20:16 UTC by Mother Jones, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Mother Jones (market data).
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
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning coverage never reports a price for the spots or the White House claim that they are not political, so readers see only Democrats objecting to an anti-socialist message. Left-leaning coverage is simply more complete on both points. The initial cable buy is put at roughly $14,000 in ABC News. That same report relays the administration's line that the president is not on the ballot. Mother Jones reports the AdImpact total later reaching $430,000 as the ad moved onto more channels. Left-leaning ABC News labels the spot a "pro-Trump advertisement." Right-leaning coverage in the Washington Examiner calls the same spot an "anti-socialist ad." One label makes the spend about a person; the other makes it about an ideology. Which agency's budget paid for the airtime, and who authorized the buy?
Bottom line

The Washington Examiner carried Jamie Raskin's Hatch Act complaint without printing a price for the government-paid Trump ad, which ABC News put at $14,000.

The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • AdImpact put the initial cable buy at roughly $14,000 numberin ABC News, Mother Jones · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The White House called the spots a public service announcement and said they are educational and not political official statementin ABC News, Mother Jones · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • AdImpact later showed spending at $430,000 as the ad ran on more channels numberin Mother Jones · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Politicians from both parties wrote letters objecting to the ad as a misuse of public funds official statementin Mother Jones · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Appropriations bills ban using funds for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by Congress contextin ABC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The ad includes a clip of Dana White's speech from the Republican National Convention contextin ABC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage treated the buy as a taxpayer-funded political advertisement promoting Trump as Republicans increase spending before the November midterms, not a genuine public service announcement. ABC News paired the White House defense with Raskin's assertion that the ad "may be felony criminal theft and conversion of government property for political campaign purposes," a Hatch Act violation for any government employees who worked on it, and a breach of ethics rules against using government resources for campaigns, and noted appropriations bans on funds for "publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by the Congress." Kevin Kosar, author of a Congressional Research Service report on government advertising and now at the American Enterprise Institute, told ABC News the advertisement "looks like puffery." Mother Jones argued that earlier presidential PSAs urged vaccination, exercise, or an end to sexual assault, whereas this one "says and does very little beyond extolling Trump" and "announces pure right-wing vibes."
The Right View
The Washington Examiner framed the controversy as Democrats and critics of President Trump "sounding the alarm" over an "anti-socialist ad" paid for by the U.S. government ahead of the midterms. It reported Raskin's claims of possible felony theft and conversion, a Hatch Act violation, and ethics violations as the Democratic line of attack, without presenting those charges as established.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that praise of Trump's record, Republican National Convention footage, and the absence of any public-action request make the spot political "puffery" and possible unauthorized propaganda paid for by taxpayers, backed by Raskin's Hatch Act and conversion claims, the appropriations ban on unauthorized publicity, Kosar's assessment, and the contrast with prior PSAs that asked the public to do something specific. The right's strongest argument, as framed by the Washington Examiner and the White House statements carried across coverage, is that the spot is patriotic, anti-socialist education rather than campaigning because "the President is not on the ballot and the ads don't have a call to action." The central unresolved tension is whether government-funded video that celebrates a sitting president's accomplishments is a lawful patriotic PSA or an illegal or unethical use of public money for political advantage.

7 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.