This Message Was Brought to You By…

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2026

Is the administration promoting America, or asking America to see itself through the president’s agenda?

It’s “I approve this message” season again, and our days are full of politicians in commercials and radio ads endorsing themselves, others, or their party’s messages. These can be uplifting or quite aggressive, depending entirely on the message makers' goals.

Headlines on October 6 added a new twist to this season: after days of criticism, including from Republicans, President Trump said MAGA Inc. would pay for the remaining spots in a recent flurry of ads.

What prompted this announcement and shift? Here’s what several Republicans said about the ads prior to his announcement (ranked from “well, that’s not good” to “sounds like a dictatorship”):

“I like the message, but it shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars.”

JOHN THUNE, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER

“You can’t spend public money to promote yourself.”

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY

“Don’t worry, using taxpayer dollars to run ominous campaign ads of the President has been done before and is completely legal… in banana republics.”

REP. THOMAS MASSIE

“It’s inappropriate…using taxpayer dollars, it feels like Viktor Orban.”

SEN. THOM TILLIS

The “it” in question was the most recent in a series of ads run by the Trump administration, beginning in late September. Described as the “Final Battle” ad by watchdogs, it seems to be a recycled 2024 Trump campaign spot. It followed in the wake of a September 23 ad described in the press as the “Love Me” ad and a September 25 ad featuring Mount Rushmore.

Though differing in content, all three ended with a “Paid for by the U.S. Government” disclaimer, telling us who paid for the ads. Unlike the “I’m [insert your favorite/least favorite politician], and I approve this message,” which is a candidate’s required seal of approval under the law, the Trump disclaimers named the payer, but not that the payment was authorized.

That’s what triggered the press and watchdog organizations to speak out alongside several prominent Republicans. The White House responded by describing the ads as “public service announcements,” while lawmakers on both sides criticized them as political in nature, even describing them as political ads. On October 5, California’s Attorney General called for an independent investigation, describing the matter as a breach of public trust.

◆

1951

To find out who’s correct, we have to look at 1951’s “publicity or propaganda” restrictions added to an appropriations law. Truman administration official Oscar Ewing prompted it with a campaign of public speeches promoting national health insurance. But that law's language failed to define propaganda and publicity.

So, the General Accounting Office (today’s Government Accountability Office) next stepped in and identified three kinds of communication they deemed “prohibited.” They are: hidden government sponsorship, purely partisan material, and self-aggrandizement. Yet even here, the terms leave considerable flexibility, with the GAO writing: “the lines separating the nonpolitical from the political cannot be precisely drawn.”

That’s a lot of leeway, and during the George W. Bush administration, what The Washington Post described as an “uncommonly aggressive campaign” led to further refinement. Under GAO examination, the ads promoting the new Medicare prescription-drug law were determined to have a noted political tone, but were deemed lawful because they described Medicare benefits and also directed people to more information.

But a different issue during the same Bush administration was found to have crossed the line. While promoting the “No Child Left Behind” legislation, the Education Department had paid Armstrong Williams for his work as a commentator. Under his contract, he was not required to disclose that the Department had paid him. When that contract was examined under GAO scrutiny, it was determined to contain covert propaganda and to have violated the Antideficiency Act. This was a very specific set of findings, and in essence determined that the government could inform the public about laws, but not disguise paid advocacy as independent commentary. The distinction mattered; the government could promote a policy at taxpayers’ expense, but it could not present the message as independent commentary.

Hop forward to the 2026 midterms and the new series of Trump ads, and you have a fairly clear checklist to evaluate them for publicity or propaganda. They are specifically described as “Paid for by the U.S. Government,” meeting any source-disclosure concerns. The administration has publicly described them as patriotic public service announcements, noting that Trump is not on the ballot. Lastly, the administration argued that the messages contain no call to action or vote.

These are valid arguments. They are also major flaws. The ads recycle campaign messages from 2024, focus on Trump and his political themes, and (perhaps most importantly) are unclear as PSAs about what service they offer.

Just consider the narration of the “Final Battle” ad:

“With you at my side, we will demolish the ‘deep state.’ We will expel the warmongers from our government. We will drive out the globalists; we will cast out the communists, Marxists, and fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will rout the fake news media, and we will liberate America from these villains once and for all.”

Reading that, it becomes easier to understand those earlier quotes from Republicans, and why some object to the ads, or at least object to who’s paying for them. Particularly the comment from Sen. Tillis. His analogy is relevant: government-funded, leader-centered advertisements blur the lines between promoting the nation and promoting the leader.

An October 2 report said at least ten more ads were waiting to air; they became part of a larger, growing argument around the Trump administration’s spending and imprint on public life. A September report from the Democratic minority staff of the Senate Joint Economic Committee estimated that “vanity projects” by the Trump administration could end up costing more than $1.8 billion.

That list included “construction of the new White House ballroom and the no-bid contract to paint the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, among others.” The figure includes spending already underway along with projected or proposed expenses. Trump pledged not to use taxpayer money for the ballroom, specifically. Some of the funds, however, came directly from the Secret Service budget.

The report does not prove that the current ad campaign breaks the rules, but it does give the self-promotion conversation a broader frame. The president’s image and ambitions have appeared in government advertising. They are also part of larger projects and spaces that the government funds or will fund.

Persuasive speech is part and parcel of every “I approve this message” season. The government has a legitimate job explaining its programs and helping people use them. But when does public information cross the line into political promotion? James Madison, writing in defense of public education, warned: “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy.” In 1951, Sen. Harry Byrd warned against “individual glorification of bureaucrats.”

A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy.

JAMES MADISON

That frames an important question: do “we the People” need the government to spend millions reminding us to love America? Perhaps there’s a case for public messages about the country and its shared commitments. But when ads use the president’s face, the president’s campaign language, and political enemies, the question is difficult to avoid: is the administration promoting America, or asking America to see itself through the president’s agenda?

“Paid for by the U.S. Government” says who paid for the airtime. We the People did. That does not automatically mean the message serves us or that the payment was authorized. But it also doesn’t mean that it is selling one president’s vision. The laws leave the lines blurry, and the administration is walking tightly along them.

“We the People” means we are more than just the audience picking up the tab. It means we are the audience with the remote in our hand, and we can click to another channel anytime. That’s one simple beauty of the many beautiful things that shape America: we can always question the script and argue about what our country should be, because the story belongs to us all. No president gets the last word, regardless of how much or how often they remind us that they approve their own message.

That may be precisely why President Trump announced on October 5 that MAGA Inc. would be picking up the tab moving forward, but didn’t mention anything about a refund.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program…

Faithfully,