A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to immediately remove three taxpayer-funded online advertisements featuring President Donald Trump on Friday, October 30, just days before the midterm elections. U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the Southern District of New York ruled the videos were likely illegal partisan propaganda paid for with public money.
According to Newsweek, the ruling expands a temporary restraining order Rochon issued two weeks earlier that barred a series of television ads glorifying Trump ahead of the midterms. The decision hands a win to the watchdog group Common Cause and, more broadly, to anyone who believes public funds should never underwrite a president's campaign messaging.
What the judge blocked, and why
The three ads are titled “$5,000 to Americans,” “Every Democrat Voted Against No Tax on Tips” and “The Cost of Socialism.” In the 33-second “$5,000” video, Trump speaks from the Oval Office and ties his promised payment directly to Republicans keeping control of Congress.
“If the Democrats win, you will have an economic depression. If the Republicans win, you will each have $5,000 in your pocket.”
Rochon said she was “hard pressed” to see the taxpayer-funded message as anything other than a direct partisan appeal.
“Voters are being directly asked to support one political party over another in an upcoming election,” she said, adding that the court “can neither postpone an election nor turn back the clock,” which is why she acted before Election Day.
She called the “No Tax on Tips” ad a “classic partisan advertisement” because it showed images of Democrats, including lawmakers running for reelection, while attacking their votes. “The Cost of Socialism,” which targeted candidates associated with the Democratic Socialists of America, crossed the line too, she found, because it urged voters to steer clear of those candidates.
The law behind the ruling
Rochon relied on Section 718 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, which bars federal funds from being used “for publicity or propaganda purposes.” The line matters. Government communications can legitimately inform the public about administration policies, justify them and respond to criticism, as the Government Accountability Office has recognized. But these three ads, the judge concluded, went significantly further.
During Friday's hearing, Rochon played one of the ads in court and asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher to explain why it was not partisan. He argued the administration was lawfully communicating the president's policies and functions.
Common Cause had sought the removal of more than a dozen advertisements, arguing the administration had shifted its campaign online after the earlier television restrictions. Rochon found only three were “substantially likely” to meet the legal bar, and she indicated the government could ultimately prevail on many of the others. The order also blocks distribution through authorized third parties, including the super PAC MAGA Inc., though government lawyers have asked her to remove MAGA Inc. from the order, arguing it is not a party to the case. She has not yet ruled on that request.
How the White House is responding
The administration did not take the ruling quietly. White House spokesperson Lauren Bis called Rochon a “Biden-appointed activist judge” who had issued a “lawless order to stop the administration from sharing patriotic videos,” as the Associated Press reported.
The White House has defended the videos as public service announcements meant to remind Americans “to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad.” It has also pointed to public messaging under former Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Biden as precedent. Vice President JD Vance told reporters earlier this month that governments have long spent public money explaining their actions.
“It's part of actually, I think, living in a constitutional republic,” Vance said. “You have to be honest with the American people about what you're doing, about what's going on.”
The $20 million question: whose money paid for this?
The ruling follows weeks of controversy over how the ad campaign was financed. Democratic Senators Patty Murray of Washington and Chris Murphy of Connecticut said it appears the Department of Homeland Security dedicated $20 million from Customs and Border Protection funding intended for “commemorative events relating to border security” to the advertising push. The senators asked DHS to disclose spending, contracts and whether ethics officials reviewed the arrangement.
A DHS spokesperson told Newsweek the department “follows all applicable rules for contracting decisions” and referred questions to the White House. The Democratic National Committee has also sued over the ads.
Earlier videos carried the disclosure “Paid for by the U.S. Government” and featured Trump criticizing communism, pledging to “demolish the deep state” and touting a “golden age of America.” Trump responded on Truth Social by saying future ads would be paid with MAGA Inc. funds, but the White House made clear he was not promising to reimburse taxpayers for ads already purchased. Asked whether taxpayers would be repaid, Trump said: “We'll decide.”
Republicans are uneasy too
What makes this fight unusual is that criticism has come from both parties. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said the message was fine but “shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars.” Texas Senator John Cornyn said, “We all know you're not supposed to use taxpayer money for that purpose.” Louisiana Senator John Kennedy said no public official should “spend public money on private ads for themselves.”
That bipartisan discomfort says something important: the principle at stake is not a partisan one. A democracy cannot function when the machinery of government becomes a reelection tool, and courts are the backstop when that line gets crossed.
Common Cause President and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón framed the stakes plainly in a statement after the ruling.
“We fought to turn off these ads because our tax dollars should serve the American people, not the president's ego or political war chest. The court rightfully recognized this scheme for what it was: an unlawful attempt to use public funds for partisan propaganda right in the middle of an election.”
The litigation continues. Rochon's order provides temporary relief, and she could revisit which ads are barred as the case develops. For now, three videos are down, but the larger fight over the boundary between governing and campaigning is just beginning.
Frequently asked questions
Why did the judge block the Trump ads?
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ruled on October 30, 2026 that three taxpayer-funded ads were “purely partisan” and likely violated a federal law prohibiting the use of government money for publicity or propaganda purposes.
Which Trump ads were ordered removed?
The ads are titled “$5,000 to Americans,” “Every Democrat Voted Against No Tax on Tips” and “The Cost of Socialism.” They must come off government websites and social media accounts, and distribution through authorized third parties is blocked.
Can the administration appeal the ruling?
The order is temporary relief while the underlying litigation continues, and Rochon indicated the government could ultimately prevail on challenges to many of the other ads. The case is ongoing.