NEW YORK, United States — A federal judge has ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to stop broadcasting political advertisements financed with public money, temporarily halting a $20 million government advertising campaign that has drawn criticism from Republicans and Democrats.
US District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued the order on Sunday, October 11, 2026, following a lawsuit alleging that the administration had improperly used federal funds to promote Trump and influence voters ahead of the November 3 congressional elections.
The ruling requires the administration to cancel any remaining broadcasts of the disputed advertisements and prohibits further agreements to produce, distribute, or air them during the two-week period covered by the order.
The television commercials began appearing in late September, promoting Trump’s political messages and accomplishments while identifying the United States government as their sponsor.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) allocated $20 million to the advertising campaign, with approximately $12 million already spent on broadcasts, according to media-tracking figures reported by the Associated Press.
The administration had indicated that the campaign would end before Rochon’s ruling, but the judge nevertheless imposed a temporary restraining order.
Judge Orders Immediate Halt to Advertisements
Rochon’s decision followed an emergency application by Common Cause, a nonpartisan government watchdog, and other plaintiffs who argued that the advertising campaign violated federal restrictions on the use of public funds.
The plaintiffs maintained that the commercials were intended to advance Republican electoral interests rather than provide information about government programmes or services.
The lawsuit also named Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, its affiliated political action committee, and Robert Hunter, a candidate for the Alabama state legislature, among those challenging the campaign.
The judge prohibited the administration from entering into new advertising arrangements or extending existing contracts involving the disputed commercials.
“Defendants shall not enter into, renew, or expand any agreement authorizing the development, creation, dissemination, placement, or airing of the challenged advertisements,” Rochon wrote.
Her order remains in effect for two weeks while the litigation proceeds.
The temporary ruling does not constitute a final determination that the administration violated federal law.
In a court filing submitted before the decision, Justice Department lawyers argued that an injunction was unnecessary because the advertising campaign was already scheduled to end.
The department did not immediately comment on the ruling, Reuters said.
$20 Million Allocated From Homeland Security Funds
The controversy began after the administration authorised the use of Department of Homeland Security funds for television advertisements featuring the president.
The commercials were broadcast during prominent television programmes, including sporting events, and appeared on major national networks.
Some featured themes associated with Trump’s previous election campaigns, while others promoted his administration’s policies and political positions.
One advertisement reused material from his 2024 presidential campaign. Another focused on his administration’s capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.
A senior Homeland Security official, Holly Mehringer, told the court that the department had drawn on funds made available by Congress for purposes that included commemorating border security activities.
The administration maintained that the advertisements were legitimate public service announcements comparable to campaigns undertaken by previous governments.
Critics disputed that explanation, arguing that the commercials primarily promoted Trump’s political image rather than informing the public about available government services.
Federal law restricts the use of congressionally appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda, and federal employees are also subject to limitations on partisan political activity.
The plaintiffs argue that the government’s advertising arrangements violated those restrictions.
Republicans Join Democrats in Criticising Spending
The decision followed criticism from lawmakers in both major political parties over the use of public money to finance advertisements promoting the president.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, questioned whether taxpayers should bear the cost.
“It shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars,” Thune told reporters, according to the Associated Press.
Republican Senator Katie Britt of Alabama, who chairs a committee responsible for overseeing Homeland Security funding, also called for scrutiny of the expenditure.
Democratic lawmakers raised similar objections.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer demanded an investigation and called on Trump to reimburse the government for the money already spent.
The Democratic National Committee filed a separate lawsuit in federal court in Washington, alleging that the advertisements constituted an unlawful use of government resources for partisan political purposes.
That case remains separate from the litigation before Rochon.
Trump Says Political Funds Will Pay for Future Ads
Trump defended the advertising campaign after criticism intensified, describing the commercials as a form of national promotion.
He subsequently announced that future advertisements would be financed through his political fundraising organisation, MAGA Inc., rather than government funds.
However, the White House indicated that the administration had no immediate plans to reimburse taxpayers for advertisements already broadcast.
When reporters asked whether the previously spent money would be returned, Trump said the matter remained undecided.
The watchdog group Common Cause has also filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission challenging Trump’s proposed use of super PAC funds.
The organisation argues that the president’s involvement in directing the political committee’s spending could violate federal campaign finance restrictions.
Those allegations have not been adjudicated.
Watchdog Group Welcomes Court Decision
Virginia Kase Solomón, president and chief executive of Common Cause, welcomed the decision and said the organisation would continue pursuing accountability for the advertising expenditure.
“We won’t stop until this administration is held fully accountable, and no president from any party can waste and abuse taxpayer funds for propaganda ever again,” Solomón said.
The plaintiffs, represented by Democracy Forward and other legal organisations, also described the ruling as an important intervention against the alleged misuse of public money.
The court’s temporary order prevents the administration from continuing the disputed campaign while the lawsuit proceeds.
It does not require the government to repay money already spent, and questions concerning the legality of the advertisements remain before the court.
The case will continue as the parties contest whether funds appropriated for government operations were lawfully used to finance the president’s television advertisements.
