Taxpayer dollars now fund TV ads that say Love Me

The ad ends with a line that feels strange to read in plain text. Paid for by the U.S. government. Then a chorus sings Love Me on repeat while President Donald Trump appears on screen.

Three ads have aired on national television in recent days. They carry messages tied to Trump’s 2024 campaign language, including one that warns of a final battle and another that says he wants to defeat communism. The White House refers to the ads as public service announcements. Critics have called the ads propaganda.

The spending is not small. An ad-tracking firm estimates the federal government has spent at least $1.7 million to run the spots during high-profile programming like football games and Sunday morning news shows. That is money taken from taxes. It is not money raised by a political party or a campaign committee.

I keep asking myself what a public service announcement is supposed to do. Past administrations have used PSAs to explain new drug coverage under Medicare, to promote Affordable Care Act signups, or to encourage vaccination during a pandemic. Those ads told people how to access a program or protect their health. These new spots do not point to a benefit you can claim or a service you can use. They point to the president.

That is where the worry sets in. Not outrage. Just a quiet unease about what happens when taxpayer funds are used to lift one person’s image weeks before an election. The midterms are five weeks away. Trump is not on the ballot in November, and the White House says the ads contain no call to action. But the messages echo campaign themes. One spot is nearly identical to an ad from the 2024 campaign, with only the fine print changed to say it was paid for by the U.S. government.

Bipartisan pushback

The criticism has not come from one side. Democrats and Republicans have both raised concerns. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, told reporters it should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars. Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana said no public official should use public money to promote his own image. Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky called one ad ominous and compared the practice to what happens in banana republics.

Democrats have been sharper in their language. Top members of the House and Senate Appropriations committees sent a letter to the White House chief of staff saying this is the sort of government propaganda one might expect in North Korea, not the United States of America. They called it an egregious and illegal misuse of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars.

Legal experts say the ads appear to run afoul of federal statutes. A provision added to government spending bills since the 1950s says no part of any appropriation shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress. The Government Accountability Office has said government-produced media can avoid the propaganda label if it is not self-aggrandizing, purely partisan, or covert about its source. Richard Painter, a former White House ethics official under President George W. Bush, told reporters the ads are clearly propaganda because they glorify the president, attack political enemies, and do not focus on a clear policy issue.

What remains unknown

The White House has not publicly identified which government agency is paying for the advertisements or disclosed their total cost beyond the ad-tracking estimates. The administration maintains that the spots are educational and unapologetically patriotic, meant to remind Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending at home, at the border, and abroad. A White House official said the ads are clearly not political because Trump is not on the ballot and there is no call to action.

That defense rests on a narrow reading of the law. It leans on the absence of a direct vote instruction. But it does not answer why a government ad would use language and imagery pulled from a campaign. It does not explain why the government would spend millions to air a chorus singing Love Me while the president appears on screen.

I think about a family watching a football game. They see an ad that looks like a campaign spot. It says it is paid for by the U.S. government. They may not know the difference between a public service announcement and a political ad. They may not know there are rules about how tax money can be used. They just know their taxes helped pay for it.

The unresolved question is whether these spots should be classified as public service announcements or propaganda. The White House says one thing. Critics and legal experts say another. The ads keep running. The money keeps going out. And the line between government information and political promotion grows harder to see.

Browse: Politics