DHS Spent $20 Million in CBP Funds on Pro-Trump TV Ads, Republicans and Democrats Both Object

The Trump administration is running national TV ads that praise President Trump, warn about communism, and echo his 2024 campaign themes. The money to make and air them came out of a Customs and Border Protection budget line, according to a Wall Street Journal report confirmed independently by NBC News, and lawmakers from both parties say that's a problem.

On September 19, the White House Office of Management and Budget, run by Director Russ Vought, moved $20 million into DHS for what was labeled "OBBBA commemorative events," according to the House Appropriations Committee's Democratic staff. The next day, September 20, CBP awarded a $20 million contract to the Maryland-based LMD Agency Inc. for a "national media campaign," as reported by the Washington Sun. Three days after that, the ads started airing during college football and NFL programming, according to PBS.

The money originated in Republicans' 2025 reconciliation law, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which was supposed to fund border security operations at CBP. AdImpact tracking cited by NBC News and PBS shows spending on the spots has topped $1.7 million to more than $2.5 million across the ads that have run in recent days.

Bipartisan pushback, different reasons

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, told reporters Monday he actually likes the ad's message but doesn't think taxpayers should be paying for it. "It's a great message. I like the message," Thune said, "but it shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars."

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, went further, confirming to both NBC News and the Washington Sun that the money came from the CBP account and explaining why. "We already have in the appropriations bill a funding restriction... that would have prohibited that," Collins said. "That's why the administration went around the appropriations process and used an account that was part of the reconciliation bill." Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., compared the ads to propaganda used by Hungary's Viktor Orban, according to PBS.

Democrats framed it in sharper terms. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said only Trump would have "the audacity to force Americans not only to watch his propaganda, but to pay for it." Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the top Democrats on the relevant appropriations panels, sent a letter Tuesday to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin demanding answers within 48 hours, calling the spending "a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars" and accusing the president of "literally stealing their tax dollars to air campaign ads celebrating himself."

House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Homeland Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, issued a joint statement saying that "when Democrats reclaim control of Congress next year," the committee will "work to uncover and reverse misuses of taxpayer money like this and hold those who abused their power accountable."

The White House defense

The White House has not backed off the ads. A spokesperson told the Washington Sun the spots "are about reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad," adding, "The ad is educational and unapologetically patriotic. We should be proud of our country." Every ad carries a disclaimer stating it was paid for by the U.S. government.

Government agencies run PSAs all the time, and the ads do disclose their government funding, unlike a normal campaign spot. The dispute isn't over whether disclosure happened. It's over content and purpose. PBS reported that legal experts say these spots differ from typical agency PSAs because they don't direct Americans to any specific program or service, and instead feature Trump touting his own record and warning about "globalists" and a "final battle," language echoing his 2024 campaign.

Watchdog group Public Citizen has filed complaints with the FCC and FTC asking them to stop the ads from airing, and separately asked the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Special Counsel to examine whether the spending violates federal anti-propaganda restrictions and the Hatch Act, according to Briefs and Ground News. No agency has announced a formal investigation, and no charges have been filed. The allegations remain allegations.

A separate but related wrinkle

Breitbart News, reporting earlier the same month, highlighted that Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, one of the Democrats now criticizing the CBP spending, runs his own taxpayer-funded congressional ad touting his record in Starr County, paid for through House official funds. That's a legally distinct arrangement. Members of Congress are permitted under House rules to use official office funds for constituent-facing ads with mandated disclosures, a different framework than an executive agency buying campaign-style national TV spots. Breitbart's piece doesn't establish that Cuellar's ad violates any rule, and it sits alongside unrelated allegations against his brother, Webb County Sheriff Martin Cuellar, who was indicted on separate federal charges. The two stories aren't the same legal question, even if Breitbart presents them side by side.

Murray and Murphy asked Secretary Mullin, within their 48-hour window, whether DHS plans to fund more ads and whether Mullin discussed the spending with Trump directly. The White House did not confirm or deny the ad contract's purpose to the Washington Sun.