A spending-law rule that most voters have never heard of became a central issue in the 2026 midterms when a federal judge in Manhattan used it, in an Oct. 12, 2026 opinion, to explain why she had halted taxpayer-paid TV spots built around President Trump. The rule is the “publicity or propaganda” rider, a sentence Congress repeats in its annual appropriations laws. It is separate from the Hatch Act, which governs what individual federal employees do. This explainer covers the rider’s text, how the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reads it, and where the open questions remain.
Where it stands: The ad case, Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security, is still at the temporary-order stage. No GAO decision on the 2026 ads had been published as of Oct. 28, and the White House maintains the spots are public service announcements.
The administration’s defense has been stated in public. FOX 5 New York reported that “The White House has defended the ads, describing them as public service announcements and comparing them to the Biden administration running ads about COVID-19 vaccinations.” In court, the government’s opposition took a procedural route. The judge wrote: “Instead, Defendants argued that mootness and lack of standing deprived the Court of jurisdiction to grant relief.”
What does the publicity or propaganda rider say?
It bars agencies from spending appropriated money on self-promotion or politics that Congress has not approved. The 2026 version, quoted by the court, says that no “part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used directly or indirectly, including by private contractor, for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress.” The court cited it as “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, Pub. L. No. 119-75, § 718.”
Cornell’s Legal Information Institute describes the phrase this way: “The phrase “publicity or propaganda” is a term of art found in the omnibus appropriations bill passed by Congress every year.” Its age matters. The court quoted GAO’s appropriations-law handbook: “As noted, although the publicity or propaganda prohibition has appeared in some form in the annual appropriations acts since 1951, the prohibitions themselves provide little definitional guidance as to what specific activities are publicity or propaganda.”
Because Congress never defined the words, judges borrow from GAO. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon wrote: “Because the appropriations acts do not provide guidance on what constitutes “publicity or propaganda,” and there is little case law interpreting such provisions, courts look to guidance from the United States Government Accountability Office (“GAO”).”
What three things does GAO treat as prohibited?
GAO sorts violations into self-promotion, purely partisan material and hidden-source material. The table summarizes the categories as Cornell’s Wex entry describes them.
| Category | What it covers | Key question |
|---|---|---|
| Self-aggrandizement | Agency puffery about its own importance | Does it overstate the agency? |
| Purely partisan | Material made to aid a party or candidate | Designed to aid a party? GAO is deferential |
| Covert propaganda | Government content with its source hidden | Was the government’s role disclosed? |
Wex defines the first: “Self-aggrandizement (also known as “puffery”) refers to an agency’s efforts to overstate its own importance.” The second: “Purely partisan purposes include efforts solely dedicated to the electoral success of a political party or candidates.” The third: “Covert propaganda refers to media materials prepared by a government agency and then disseminated by a non-government outlet with the source undisclosed.”
GAO sets a high bar for partisan claims. Wex notes: “Recognizing the difficulties in separating permissible explanation from impermissible partisan politicking, GAO has taken an extremely deferential view.” One example of that deference: GAO cleared the Social Security Administration in a 2005 decision over mailings that warned of a funding crisis while President George W. Bush promoted private accounts. Wex records it as “finding permissible the Social Security Administration’s inclusion in regular mailings to 140 million Americans a warning that Social Security was facing a funding crisis at the same time that President Bush was stumping for his privatization program.”
When has GAO found a violation?
The best-known modern finding involved hidden authorship. In decision B-303495, dated “January 4, 2005,” GAO examined video segments the White House drug office sent to TV stations. Its holding: “we conclude that the prepackaged news stories in these VNRs constitute covert propaganda and violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition because ONDCP did not identify itself to the viewing audience as the producer and distributor of these prepackaged news stories.”
That decision also shows what a violation triggers. GAO explained that “The Antideficiency Act prohibits making or authorizing an expenditure or obligation that exceeds available budget authority,” and concluded: “Because ONDCP has no appropriation available for the production and distribution of materials that violate the publicity or propaganda prohibition, ONDCP violated the Antideficiency Act.” Quoting an earlier decision, GAO described the rider’s job as marking “the boundary between an agency making information available to the public and agencies creating news reports” with hidden origins.
How did the court apply the rule to the 2026 ads?
Through the purely partisan branch, not the covert one. The 2026 spots displayed a government funding line, which made the covert theory a poor fit, according to reporting on GAO’s past view. FOX 5 reported: “Experts have told The Associated Press that the ads could violate a law against congressionally appropriated funds being used for propaganda, though the Government Accountability Office has said propaganda means the government concealed its role in the ad.”
📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
The judge looked instead at partisanship. She quoted GAO’s standard that material can “be characterized as purely partisan in nature” only if “the offending materials must be found to have been designed to aid a political party or candidate.” Then she noted the government’s litigating position: “Defendants do not contest that the at-issue advertisements are purely partisan and unconnected to DHS’s official functions.” Her conclusion, at the temporary stage: “Thus, the Court finds that Moving Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the advertisements are impermissible “publicity or propaganda” under Section 718.”
She pointed to one spot in particular: “Indeed, the “Final Battle” advertisement is almost identical to one used during President Trump’s 2024 campaign, other than the fact that its funding disclaimer now identifies the United States government rather than his presidential campaign.” A likelihood finding is not a final judgment. The full complaint and court record are covered in our report on the ad lawsuit and Hatch Act complaint.
What other publicity or propaganda requests are pending?
Several requests have gone to GAO since the 2025 shutdown, and no public GAO decision on any of them was found as of Oct. 28. House Homeland Security Democrats wrote to GAO on “October 16, 2025,” saying that “On October 10, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted to social media and reportedly directed airports to air a video of Secretary Noem blaming Democrats for the ongoing government shutdown.” Federal News Network reported that Democracy Defenders Fund sent its own shutdown request to GAO in an October 2025 letter, with a letter labeling the messaging “publicity and propaganda.” FNN explained GAO’s role: “GAO evaluates compliance with appropriations law, including ruling on potential violations of the Antideficiency Act.”
The same group raised the rider again over an FBI video this October, arguing that Congress has barred unauthorized publicity spending since 1951 “and the 2026 spending laws carry that ban forward for the FBI.” See our report on the FBI video complaints, and an earlier explainer on the limits of GAO’s powers.
A separate provision in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. 1913, targets lobbying with federal money rather than publicity. It says “No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress , be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement” meant to sway Congress or other officials on legislation or policy. After a 2002 amendment, the statute says, “Violations of this section shall constitute violations of section 1352(a) of title 31.” In the ad case, the latest entry on the Campaign Legal Center’s docket list as of Oct. 28 was “Common Cause v. DHS — Expanded TRO October 23, 2026.”
Frequently Asked Questions
What does publicity or propaganda mean in federal law?
It is a term of art in annual appropriations laws barring agencies from spending money on publicity or propaganda Congress has not authorized. GAO reads it to cover self-aggrandizement, purely partisan material and covert propaganda.
Is the publicity or propaganda ban part of the Hatch Act?
No. The Hatch Act limits political activity by individual federal employees and is enforced by the Office of Special Counsel. The publicity or propaganda rider limits how agencies spend money and is interpreted by GAO and, in lawsuits, by courts.
Did GAO rule on the 2026 Trump ads?
No GAO decision on the 2026 ads had been published as of Oct. 28, 2026. A federal judge cited GAO guidance when granting a temporary restraining order in the Common Cause lawsuit against DHS.
Do government ads with a disclaimer count as covert propaganda?
GAO has tied covert propaganda to the government hiding its role. The 2026 ads displayed a government funding line, so the court relied instead on the purely partisan category, which the government did not contest at that stage.
What happens if an agency violates the rule?
In its 2005 drug-office decision, GAO found that spending money in violation of the rider also violated the Antideficiency Act, which requires the agency to report the violation to the president and Congress.
Sources
- Common Cause et al. v. Department of Homeland Security et al., Opinion and Order, No. 1:26-cv-08882 (JLR) — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, October 12, 2026
- Publicity or propaganda — Legal Information Institute (Wex), Cornell Law School, accessed October 28, 2026
- Office of National Drug Control Policy: Video News Release (B-303495) — U.S. Government Accountability Office (via govinfo), January 4, 2005
- DHS spends $20M in taxpayer funds on ad campaign promoting Trump administration — FOX 5 New York, October 2026
- Democracy Defenders Fund Calls for Investigation into Taxpayer-Funded FBI Video Attacking Democrats During Early Voting — Democracy Defenders Fund (press release), October 15, 2026
- Agency shutdown messaging draws Hatch Act, Antideficiency Act challenges — Federal News Network, October 3, 2025
- Letter to GAO re: Noem video Antideficiency Act violation review — House Committee on Homeland Security Democrats, October 16, 2025
- 18 U.S. Code § 1913: Lobbying with appropriated moneys — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, accessed October 28, 2026
- Challenging Government-Funded Propaganda and Hatch Act Violations — Campaign Legal Center (case page), updated October 23, 2026
This article is news reporting and analysis based on the public sources listed above, as they stood on the dates shown. Where officials, lawmakers or analysts disagree, including on whether an action is lawful, their positions are attributed to them; Donald Trump Class Action is not a court and nothing here is legal advice. Facts in a developing story can change.