A federal judge on Friday ordered the government to pull three taxpayer-funded Trump administration advertisements that appear to have been made for political or propaganda purposes, including one touting the president's claim that every American will get $5,000 if Republicans keep control of Congress.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York issued the order during a hearing on expanding a temporary restraining order she handed down two weeks ago, when she banned a series of ads that glorify Trump and echo his political messaging ahead of the midterms. The three ads are “$5,000 to Americans,” “Every Democrat Voted Against No Tax on Tips” and “Cost of Socialism.” They must come off official government websites and social media, and Rochon ordered the cancellation of any plans for airing or distribution through authorized third parties, including Trump's flagship super PAC, MAGA Inc.
The coalition had sought the removal of at least 13 ads; Rochon ordered only three pulled, at least for now. She noted that the Government Accountability Office has observed that the president's office is sometimes entitled to inform the public of its policies, justify those policies and respond to attacks on them, and said the plaintiffs were seeking to restrict the office in ways she described as “broad and far reaching.” She said she concluded the government would ultimately prevail legally with regard to many of the ads, but that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims regarding the ads and could suffer irreparable harm if the ads remained up while the case proceeds.
The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements similar to those past administrations produced, while the coalition argues they differ because they do not try to help the public benefit from specific government programs. In court papers, coalition lawyers wrote that Congress did not appropriate funds to the president's office “to run a PR shop to help the President's allies and attack his perceived ideological opponents.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher responded that there was nothing wrong with White House staff compiling ads to “inform the public about his policies and to rebut attacks on those policies and his Administration.”
White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said the ruling came from a “Biden-appointed activist judge” who “issued a lawless order to stop the administration from sharing patriotic videos.” Bradley Girard, a lawyer with Democracy Forward, said the order “will stop the administration's wanton disregard for the law while the court hears the full case.”
Rochon said she could reverse herself and restore the ads, or ban additional ads, after hearing more evidence in the coming weeks. “This court can neither postpone an election nor turn back the clock,” she said. She issued the order on a Friday afternoon, saying the government would have no excuse to delay, and quipped: “Everyone is here. Everyone can hear my order. No one is at the theater.”
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The ruling blocks taxpayer-funded ads carrying campaign-style messaging in the final stretch of the midterm campaign, testing what presidents may promote from official channels.
- The outcome remains unsettled: Rochon may reverse herself and restore the ads, or ban additional ones, as the case continues.
- The case could help define the line between informing the public and campaigning using government resources.
Background
Federal law restricts the use of taxpayer money for partisan or propaganda purposes, while the Government Accountability Office has recognized that a president's office may inform the public about policies, justify those policies and respond to attacks on them. This case tests that boundary during an election campaign, with a coalition including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause challenging a series of White House ads.
Key Perspectives
White House: Has defended the ads as public service announcements; spokesperson Lauren Bis called the ruling a “lawless order” from a “Biden-appointed activist judge,” and government lawyer Jeffrey Oestericher said compiling ads to inform the public about policies and rebut attacks was not wrong.
Coalition (including Common Cause and Democracy Forward): Says the ads are partisan and cannot be funded with taxpayer dollars; Congress did not appropriate money “to run a PR shop to help the President's allies and attack his perceived ideological opponents.”
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon: Found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the three ads and ordered them down, but called the request “broad and far reaching” and said the government would likely prevail on many other ads.
What to Watch
- Whether the ads come down immediately; Rochon issued the order on a Friday afternoon and said the government would have no excuse to delay.
- Whether Rochon, after hearing more evidence in the coming weeks, restores the pulled ads or bans additional ones.
- The full case, in which the coalition sought removal of at least 13 ads and the government is defending the rest.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 11 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedA judge ordered the government to pull three taxpayer-funded Trump administration ads.LAist: “The federal government must pull three taxpayer-funded Trump administration ads that appear to have been made for political or propaganda purposes”
- SupportedThe judge said the government would likely prevail legally on many of the ads.LAist: “she found herself concluding that the government will ultimately prevail legally with regard to many of the ads.”
- SupportedThe ads appear to have been made for political or propaganda purposes.LAist: “three taxpayer-funded Trump administration ads that appear to have been made for political or propaganda purposes”
- Partly supportedAn ad touted Trump's claim that every American would get $5,000 if Republicans kept control of Congress.LAist: “including one touting the president’s claim that every American will get $5,000 if Republicans keep control of Congress in the upcoming election”
- SupportedThe coalition sought removal of at least 13 ads, and the judge ordered only three pulled, at least for now.LAist: “The plaintiffs sought the removal of at least 13 ads, but Rochon only ordered that the three be pulled, at least for now.”
- SupportedRochon described the restrictions sought by plaintiffs as “broad and far reaching.”LAist: “Rochon said the plaintiffs were seeking to restrict the office in ways that were “broad and far reaching””
- SupportedCoalition lawyers said Congress did not appropriate funds for a “PR shop” to help the president’s allies and attack opponents.LAist: “Congress did not appropriate funds to the president’s office “to run a PR shop to help the President’s allies and attack his perceived ideological opponents.””
- SupportedAssistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher said White House staff could compile ads to inform the public about policies and rebut attacks.LAist: “Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher wrote in response to the plaintiffs that there was nothing wrong with White House staff compiling advertisements to “inform the public about his policies and to rebut attacks on those policies and his Administration.””
- SupportedWhite House spokesperson Lauren Bis called Rochon a “Biden-appointed activist judge” and said the order was “lawless.”LAist: ““This Biden-appointed activist judge issued a lawless order to stop the administration from sharing patriotic videos.””
- SupportedBradley Girard said the order would stop the administration’s “wanton disregard for the law” while the case proceeded.LAist: ““This temporary restraining order will stop the administration’s wanton disregard for the law while the court hears the full case,” said Bradley Girard, a lawyer with Democracy Forward.”
- SupportedRochon said the court could neither postpone an election nor turn back the clock.LAist: ““This court can neither postpone an election nor turn back the clock,” Rochon said”
- SupportedRochon quipped, “Everyone is here. Everyone can hear my order. No one is at the theater.”LAist: ““Everyone is here. Everyone can hear my order. No one is at the theater,” the judge quipped”