Federal budget records show that a $20 million contract for a Pro-Trump ad campaign was funded through the Department of Homeland Security’s border-security budget. The move has drawn criticism from Democrats, who say the money was meant for protecting the border, not promoting a president.
On Sept. 19, federal records show funds were moved into a Customs and Border Protection account for “commemorative events.” The next day, a $20 million contract was awarded to the LMD Agency, a Maryland-based advertising firm, for a “National Media Campaign.” The ads began airing days later.
How the Money Moved
The funds appear to have been drawn from Trump’s signature tax and spending bill passed in 2025. That bill provided $6.2 billion for border security improvements, including “$6.2 billion for border security improvements.”
CBP is the agency within DHS responsible for securing the nation’s border and ports of entry. The federal government has spent at least $1.7 million to air three different TV ads featuring Trump, according to an estimate from AdImpact.
The White House Defense
The White House has defended the ads as “public service announcements” and compared them to past administrations’ PSAs highlighting new drug coverage under Medicare and Affordable Care Act exchanges.
In a statement to ABC News, a White House spokesperson said: “These public service announcements are about reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad. The ad is educational and unapologetically patriotic. We should be proud of our country.”
The Letter From Democrats
“The American people deserve answers about how this president is literally stealing their tax dollars to air campaign ads celebrating himself — while doing nothing to help them afford health care or housing,” the letter states.
The letter also raises questions about whether the ads could violate federal propaganda law. The ads look like political messaging, not education.
The letter asks for a full accounting of how the funds were spent and whether the ads continue. It also presses Mullin on the continuation of the ads and DHS’s role in airing them.
What the Campaign Includes
The three TV ads feature Trump and promote his administration’s record. The White House has described them as reminders to love the country and understand what makes it worth defending.
Democrats see a different picture. They argue the money was set aside for border security, not presidential promotion. The letter to Mullin asks for a full accounting of how the funds were spent and whether the ads continue.
Here is what the campaign involves:
- A $20 million contract awarded to the LMD Agency
- Three TV ads featuring Trump
- Spending of at least $1.7 million according to AdImpact
- Funding drawn from the 2025 tax and spending bill
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sept. 19 | Funds moved into CBP account for “commemorative events” |
| Sept. 20 | $20 million contract awarded to LMD Agency |
| Days later | Ads began airing |
Where This Lands
The dispute is about what counts as acceptable use of taxpayer money. The 2025 bill included funding for “border security improvements, including ‘commemorating efforts and events related to border security,'” but that language is broad enough to cover a range of activities.
The question is whether commemorating a border-security effort means airing ads for the president who controls it. The White House says yes; Democrats say no.
The ads are unlikely to stop anytime soon. The White House has defended them publicly, and the campaign continues to run. But the question of whether the money was used properly remains unresolved.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs neither side and backs instead the principle that a border-protection fund should not be used to pay for a presidential ad campaign, whatever the law permits. The paper’s position is that government funds should serve the purposes they were allocated for, and when they don’t, the problem is the allocation itself, not the defense of it.
The records show the money moved directly from a border-security budget into a CBP account labeled “commemorative events” before the contract was awarded. That label alone raises the question: commemoration of what? The White House calls the ads public service announcements, but the letter from Democrats argues the money was set aside for border security, not presidential promotion. The paper agrees with the question, even if it cannot resolve it.
What matters here is the principle that money collected from citizens should be spent for the purpose stated, and no other. When the purpose is changed without explanation, the citizen loses trust in how their money is handled. The paper wants that trust restored, not defended with vague labels or comparisons to past administrations.
Source material: “Pro-Trump ad campaign was financed by DHS: Sources,” ABC13 Houston.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.