Richard Painter says a Trump ad could cost taxpayers twice

A television ad once used in President Trump’s campaign has returned with a new label: “Paid for by the U.S. Government.” Richard Painter, a former White House ethics attorney, says that choice could be an impeachable offense.

That is a serious claim. It is also a claim that needs care.

Painter wrote that “this could be an impeachable offense.” He added that the “President has no right to use taxpayer money for campaign ads.” His comments referred to a discussion with Bayliss Wagner of the New York Times.

The ad is not hard to understand. It uses material from Trump’s 2024 campaign. In that earlier ad, Trump spoke of a “final battle,” the “deep state,” and “warmongers” in government. The new version aired on television and ended with a notice saying that the U.S. Government paid for it.

That change raises a basic question about public money. Government funds are meant to pay for public work. They may support information about services, rules, or programs. They are not meant to turn the government into a campaign office.

The White House has offered a different view. It says the ads are public service announcements, not campaign ads, because Trump is not on the ballot in the November elections. The administration has also pointed to past government ads about Medicare and health care enrollment.

That argument may matter in court or before Congress. But it does not settle the issue for people watching at home.

A public service ad usually tells people what a government program does or how they can use it. An ad that repeats a president’s campaign message raises a different concern. It can look less like information and more like political promotion, even if it does not ask viewers to vote.

The timing adds to the concern. The ads appeared with the midterm elections approaching. Trump has also urged voters to treat him as if he were on the ballot. That does not decide the legal question, but it makes the government’s claim that the ads are purely public education harder to accept without close review.

The New York Times reported that the returned ad aired across the country, including during news, college football, and NFL broadcasts. It was nearly identical to a Trump campaign ad from 2024. The difference was who paid for the airtime.

That difference is the whole story.

A campaign pays to shape a voter’s view of a candidate. A government pays to carry out public business. Those roles can overlap in a democracy, but they should not blur without a clear reason and a clear legal basis.

Painter’s wording is direct. His conclusion is not a court ruling. Whether the use of taxpayer money for these ads violates federal law, or rises to the level of an impeachable offense, remains a matter of legal and political judgment. The available facts do not answer that question by themselves.

Still, the concern is plain. The ad uses a president’s own political message. It draws on material created for a campaign. It is paid for by the public. The White House calls that public education. Critics call it government propaganda.

The label at the end does not remove the problem. In one sense, it makes the problem clearer. Taxpayers are being told who paid for the message, but they are not being told why their money should pay for it.

There is a practical cost when government spending becomes hard to separate from political promotion. People may lose trust in official messages. They may wonder whether a public notice is meant to help them or persuade them. That loss of trust does not belong to one party. It follows citizens into hospitals, schools, disaster warnings, tax notices, and every other place where government must be believed.

This is why the question should not be treated as a fight between Trump’s supporters and opponents. The rule should be the same for any president. Public money should not become a private tool for building a political image.

Painter says the president has no right to use taxpayer money for campaign ads. The White House says these are not campaign ads. Between those two statements sits the duty of Congress, the courts, and federal officials to examine what was bought, why it was bought, and whether the law allowed it.

That work matters more than the loudness of the argument. If the ads were lawful public information, the administration should be able to explain the purpose in plain terms. If they were political ads paid for with public funds, the public deserves a clear account of who approved them and under what authority.

Browse: Politics

The money may be public. The judgment cannot be outsourced.