Biden-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump Ads Days Before Midterms - Newsweek

A federal judge appointed by former President Joe Biden ordered the Trump administration to immediately remove three taxpayer-funded advertisements featuring President Donald Trump just days before the midterm elections.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the Southern District of New York said Friday the three online advertisements were “purely partisan” and likely violated a federal prohibition on using government money for publicity or propaganda purposes.

One of the blocked videos contains a direct appeal tied to the outcome of the midterms, with Trump telling viewers from the Oval Office: “If the Democrats win, you will have an economic depression. If the Republicans win, you will each have $5,000 in your pocket.”

Rochon ordered the ads removed from government websites and social media accounts and blocked their distribution through authorized third parties.

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.”

Newsweek reached out Saturday to the White House and Common Cause, one of the groups challenging the ads in court, for further comment.

The three advertisements targeted by Rochon are titled “$5,000 to Americans,” “Every Democrat Voted Against No Tax on Tips” and “The Cost of Socialism.” The judge declined to block several other government advertisements challenged in the case.

In the 33-second “$5,000 to Americans” video, Trump speaks from the Oval Office and explicitly ties his promised payment to Republicans retaining control of Congress.

Rochon said she was “hard pressed” to see how the taxpayer-funded message could be considered anything other than a direct partisan appeal.

“Voters are being directly asked to support one political party over another in an upcoming election,” Rochon said.

The judge called “Every Democrat Voted Against No Tax on Tips” a “classic partisan advertisement” since it showed images of Democrats, including lawmakers running for reelection, while attacking them over their votes against part of Trump’s agenda.

Rochon also found that “The Cost of Socialism,” which criticized candidates associated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), crossed the line.

“There is even a call to action, urging voters to steer clear of candidates aligned with the agenda,” she said.

During Friday’s hearing, Rochon played an advertisement in court and asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher to explain why it wasn't partisan. Oestericher said the administration was lawfully communicating the president’s policies and functions.

Rochon’s decision follows an earlier temporary restraining order restricting the administration’s use of taxpayer money for pro-Trump television advertisements.

Common Cause returned to court arguing that the administration had effectively shifted its advertising campaign online, using Executive Office of the President funding for videos on government social media accounts after the earlier restrictions were imposed.

The group sought the removal of more than a dozen advertisements ahead of the closely watched midterms. Rochon, however, concluded that only three were “substantially likely” to meet the legal bar for prohibited propaganda and indicated that the government could ultimately prevail over challenges to many of the others.

Her ruling relied on Section 718 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, which prohibits federal funds from being used “for publicity or propaganda purposes.”

The distinction is significant since government communications can legitimately inform the public about and defend administration policies. Rochon said the Government Accountability Office has recognized that the president's office can inform the public about its policies, justify them and respond to criticism.

But she concluded that the three ads at issue went significantly further.

“This court can neither postpone an election nor turn back the clock,” Rochon said in explaining the need to act before Election Day.

The administration has consistently defended its taxpayer-funded advertising as legitimate government communications rather than campaign material.

The White House previously told Newsweek that the videos were public service announcements intended 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 government-funded public messaging under former Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Biden as precedent.

Vice President JD Vance defended the practice earlier this month, telling reporters that governments have long spent public money telling Americans about 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.”

Democratic Senators Patty Murray of Washington and Chris Murphy of Connecticut have said it appears the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) dedicated $20 million from Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) funding intended for “commemorative events relating to border security” to the advertising campaign.

The two senators asked DHS to disclose how much had been spent, provide copies of any related contracts and say whether government lawyers or ethics officials reviewed the arrangement.

In a statement to Newsweek earlier this month, a DHS spokesperson said: “DHS follows all applicable rules for contracting decisions and keeps all decision makers informed. All contracting decisions are made in accordance with applicable law.” The department also referred Newsweek to the White House’s defense of the advertisements.

The Democratic National Committee also sued the Trump administration over the ads earlier this month.

Meanwhile, earlier advertisements promoted Trump and his policies while displaying the disclosure “Paid for by the U.S. Government.”

They included a spot featuring Trump criticizing communism, another in which he pledged to “demolish the deep state” and drive “the warmongers from our government,” and a third centered on what Trump has called the “golden age of America.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota previously told reporters: “It’s a great message. I like the message. But it shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars.”

Texas Senator John Cornyn similarly said: “We all know you’re not supposed to use taxpayer money for that purpose.”

Louisiana Senator John Kennedy said he did not believe any public official, including Trump, should “spend public money on private ads for themselves.”

“The Radical Left is upset with the fact that I am taking Ads, which I consider to be a positive promotion for our Great U.S.A., and paying for them with U.S.A. money,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

He added that he had decided to “pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc.”

The White House subsequently told Newsweek that the president was not promising to reimburse taxpayers for advertisements that had already been paid for with federal funds.

Asked by reporters whether taxpayers would be repaid, Trump said: “We’ll decide.”

Friday’s ruling reached the super PAC issue directly by ordering the cancellation of planned distribution of the three challenged ads through authorized third parties, including MAGA Inc. But government lawyers later asked Rochon to remove MAGA Inc. from the order, arguing it isn't a party to the litigation and the administration has no control over its operations. The judge has not yet ruled on that request.

“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,” Common Cause President and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said in a statement following Friday’s decision. “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 dispute is not finished. Rochon’s order provides temporary relief while the underlying litigation continues, and she indicated that the government could ultimately prevail over challenges to many of the other advertisements. The judge could revisit which ads are barred as the case develops.

Contact Newsweek editors for this story: Anthony Murray and Steve Mollman.