Taxpayers are footing the bill for a new round of ads praising President Trump — and this time, the backlash is coming from his own party as much as the other one.

According to records reviewed by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, White House budget director Russ Vought moved $20 million out of Department of Homeland Security funds on September 19 — money that had been earmarked for U.S. Customs and Border Protection under Trump's sweeping tax-and-spending law — and redirected it toward self-promotion. The very next day, DHS awarded a $20 million contract to a little-known Maryland firm, LMD Agency Inc., for what paperwork describes as a "National Media Campaign."

The resulting ads have been airing during college football broadcasts, NFL games and other high-rated programming, each one carrying the disclosure "Paid for by the U.S. Government." One spot shows Trump striding down a hallway warning of a "final battle" against "globalists," echoing his 2024 campaign rhetoric. Another pairs presidential imagery with a looping "love me, love me" refrain. Ad-tracking firm AdImpact found more than $2.5 million had already been spent airing just three of the spots within a single week.

GOP Senators Join the Criticism

What makes this round of spending different from DHS's earlier self-promotional ad pushes is who's objecting. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican, said flatly that the campaign "shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars." Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., went further, comparing the ads to the kind of state-run propaganda associated with Hungary's Viktor Orban.

IT SHOULDN'T BE PAID FOR WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

Democrats were, predictably, no less critical. Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Chris Murphy of Connecticut both argued the spending is illegal, with Murphy saying bluntly that using government funds to produce or air political ads "like the ones that have been running over the last few days" crosses a legal line. In the House, Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Henry Cuellar of Texas — who separately launched a formal investigation into DHS's broader ad spending — called the campaign tone-deaf given recent cuts to Medicaid and SNAP food assistance.

At the heart of the legal debate is a decades-old appropriations rider that bars federal agencies from spending congressionally approved money on "publicity or propaganda." Government ethics experts note that, unlike a typical public-service announcement, these spots don't direct viewers to any specific government program or benefit — they simply thank the president for his own policies, which is the kind of self-congratulatory messaging the propaganda rule was written to prevent.

DHS has not issued a detailed rebuttal to the specific $20 million transfer, though the agency has defended its broader advertising push in the past by pointing to self-deportation numbers it credits to earlier campaigns. With House Democrats' investigation still open and Senate Republicans now publicly souring on the optics, the ads are likely to keep running — and keep drawing fire — right through the final weeks of the midterm campaign.