The Campaign Legal Center asked the U.S. Office of Special Counsel on Oct. 7, 2026, to investigate six senior officials over government-paid television spots built around President Trump. The same week, a federal judge in Manhattan ordered the government to stop paying for them. The two cases run on separate tracks: one is a Hatch Act complaint about the people involved, the other is a lawsuit about how the money was spent. Neither has produced a final ruling on the taxpayer funded ads.
Where it stands: The Hatch Act complaint is pending with no public decision from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). In the lawsuit, the Campaign Legal Center’s case page lists “Common Cause v. DHS — Expanded TRO October 23, 2026,” meaning the temporary order was broadened after it was first issued.
The White House denies the spots are political. A Sept. 25 White House statement, quoted in the complaint, said: “The announcements are very clearly not campaign ads; President Trump is not on the ballot and there is no call to action.” Trump said on Sept. 30, also as quoted in the complaint: “I’ll gladly pay the money, but these are ads for the country. I’m not promoting a candidate. I’m not promoting myself because I’m not running for” office. More broadly, The New York Times reported that “Representatives for the White House and government agencies contend that the complaints are politically motivated to hurt Republicans and that officials’ activities comply with the law.”
What are the taxpayer funded ads at the center of the dispute?
They are TV commercials featuring Trump that carried an on-screen line saying the government paid for them. According to the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) complaint, “Beginning on or about September 23, 2026, television advertisements featuring President Donald J. Trump aired nearly 3,000 times on national broadcast networks.” The complaint says “Airtime costs for the three advertisements were estimated to total over $2.5 million as of September 30, 2026.”
The complaint focuses on three spots. It describes the last of them this way: “The third advertisement aired on September 27, 2026, and is a complete republication of a campaign ad originally created and paid for by Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.” The group notes that the 2024 versions closed with a line saying they were “Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President 2024, Inc.” The new one carries the government’s name instead.
Where the money came from is reported, not adjudicated. FOX 5 New York reported that House Democrats said OMB Director “Russ Vought, moved $20 million from Homeland Security resources to the ad campaign on Sept. 19.” Some Republicans objected too: per the same report, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican, said the spending “shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars.” The station also 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.”
Who is named in the Hatch Act complaint, and what does it allege?
The complaint names six officials and asks OSC to find out what happened; it is an accusation, not a finding. The named officials are “OMB Director Russell Vought, OMB General Counsel Mark Paoletta, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin,” White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and “White House Counsel Will Scharf, and White House Appointments Secretary Natalie Harp.”
The Hatch Act is the 1939 law limiting partisan activity by federal employees. Its core rule, in 5 U.S.C. 7323(a)(1), says an employee may not “use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;” CLC argues the ads crossed that line, pointing to what it says is the lack of a clear non-electoral purpose, their airing weeks before the Nov. 3 midterms, and their tone and wide distribution. It also raises a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 610, which bars coercing federal workers into political activity, and says officials may have risked “violating both the Hatch Act and criminal law.” Its stated request is narrower than a verdict: “An OSC investigation is needed to determine if White House, OMB, DHS, and CBP employees participated in political activity through the production and distribution of these advertisements” while on the job.
The Times quoted CLC’s Kedric Payne: “We have not seen this level of violations in recent times.” That is the group’s view. OSC has not said whether it opened a case. For how the office handles complaints like this, see our explainer on what the Hatch Act covers.
What did the lawsuit argue, and what did the judge order?
The lawsuit is about appropriations law, not the Hatch Act. CLC’s case page says “Campaign Legal Center Action, Democracy Forward and the Public Integrity Project, on behalf of SEIU Local 32BJ, Empire State 32BJ SEIU PAC, Common Cause and Alabama state congressional candidate Robert Hunter, filed a lawsuit.” NBC News described Hunter more precisely as “Robert Hunter, a Democratic candidate for a seat in the Alabama state House.” The Times reported that CLC’s litigation arm “is one of the groups that is also suing the Trump administration over the ad campaign.”
The case is Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security, “Case No. 1:26-cv-08882 (JLR),” before “JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge” in the Southern District of New York. Her order paused a federal ad-buying contract with “Lepugh, Inc., doing business as LMD Agency, Inc.” and the “apportionment of $20 million to fund the development, creation, and/or airing of the” spots. It named five ads, not three: “The Country He Loves, Celebrating the Enduring Spirit, Final Battle, To the Great Proud People of Iran, and Maduro.”
| Track | Hatch Act complaint | Lawsuit |
|---|---|---|
| Filed by | Campaign Legal Center | CLC Action and allies for four plaintiffs |
| Forum | Office of Special Counsel | Federal court, S.D.N.Y. |
| Legal theory | Misuse of official authority; coercion | Spending outside what Congress approved |
| Ads covered | Three | Five named in the order |
| Status | Pending, no public decision | Temporary order, later expanded |
The order stated: “This Order shall be effective as of 6:45 p.m. on October 11, 2026.” It said it would “remain in effect until 14 days from today, subject to an extension of this Court.” The judge found that “(1) the present motion is not moot, (2) there is standing to proceed, and (3) the moving Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits.” A likelihood finding at this early stage is not a final judgment.
📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
How did the government respond in court?
The government fought the case on procedure rather than on the spending question. Judge Rochon’s written opinion of Oct. 12 says “Defendants did not contest that the placements for the challenged advertisements were paid for by taxpayer appropriated funds for border security, technology, and screening and did not dispute Plaintiffs’ contention that use of those funds violated the Purpose Act and the Appropriations Act.” It continues: “Instead, Defendants argued that mootness and lack of standing deprived the Court of jurisdiction to grant relief.” The opinion also states that “Defendants do not contest that the at-issue advertisements are purely partisan and unconnected to DHS’s official functions.”
The mootness argument rested on the buys ending. NBC News reported: “The administration had said in a court filing Saturday that the Department of Homeland Security, via a vendor, had placed ad buys through Sunday and had told the vendor to not purchase ads beyond that day.” NBC also reported that the White House, DHS and OMB “did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.” Separately, the CLC complaint records that Trump “publicly announced that funding for the advertisements would come from MAGA, Inc. going forward.”
Why are there two cases instead of one?
Because the two laws reach different things. The Hatch Act governs what individual employees do, and OSC enforces it; it does not let a court halt spending. The appropriations rules govern how agencies spend money, and a court can block a spending decision under the Administrative Procedure Act. That is why CLC and its litigation affiliate pursued both. CLC’s case page says it plainly: “In addition to filing a lawsuit, Campaign Legal Center also filed a Hatch Act complaint related to these ads.”
Other challengers went to court as well. NBC reported that “The suit was one of several similar complaints — including one by the Democratic National Committee — that were filed to get the ads off the air.” The appropriations rule on government publicity, and how the Government Accountability Office has applied it over the years, is covered in our explainer on the publicity or propaganda ban and in our earlier look at what GAO can and cannot do. Every other pending complaint is in our Hatch Act complaints tracker.
As of Oct. 28, OSC had not announced any action on the Oct. 7 complaint, and the latest order listed on CLC’s case page was the expanded restraining order dated Oct. 23.
Frequently Asked Questions
Were the Trump ads paid for with taxpayer money?
In court, the government did not contest that the ad placements were paid for with appropriated funds meant for border security, technology and screening, according to Judge Rochon’s Oct. 12 opinion. The White House calls the spots public service announcements, not campaign ads.
Did a court rule that the ads violated the Hatch Act?
No. The lawsuit is an appropriations case. The judge found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on spending-law claims and issued a temporary order. The Hatch Act question is a separate complaint pending with the Office of Special Counsel, which has issued no public decision.
Who filed the Hatch Act complaint about the ads?
The Campaign Legal Center filed it on Oct. 7, 2026, naming budget director Russell Vought and his agency’s general counsel, Mark Paoletta; Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin; and three White House aides: chief of staff Susie Wiles, counsel Will Scharf and appointments secretary Natalie Harp. None has been found to have broken the law.
How many ads are involved?
The Campaign Legal Center complaint discusses three ads that began airing in late September. The court order names five ads, adding two titled for Iran and for Maduro.
Who will pay for the ads now?
According to the Campaign Legal Center complaint, Trump publicly said the super PAC MAGA, Inc. would fund the ads going forward. No public record of that payment arrangement had been reported as of Oct. 28.
Sources
- Hatch Act complaint to Special Counsel Charles N. Baldis re political television advertisements — Campaign Legal Center, October 7, 2026
- Cabinet Officials on the Campaign Trail? Ethics Experts Say Some Are Breaking the Law. — The New York Times, October 28, 2026
- Challenging Government-Funded Propaganda and Hatch Act Violations — Campaign Legal Center (case page), updated October 23, 2026
- Common Cause et al. v. Department of Homeland Security et al., Order (TRO), No. 1:26-cv-08882 (JLR) — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, October 11, 2026
- Common Cause et al. v. Department of Homeland Security et al., Opinion and Order — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, October 12, 2026
- Federal judge orders pro-Trump TV ads funded by taxpayers off air immediately — NBC News (via NBC4 Washington), October 11, 2026
- DHS spends $20M in taxpayer funds on ad campaign promoting Trump administration — FOX 5 New York, October 2026
- 5 U.S.C. Chapter 73, Subchapter III: Political Activities — U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), 2023 edition, accessed October 28, 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.