Wisconsin Democrats sue Trump, federal agencies over taxpayer funded campaign ads

The Wisconsin Democratic Party sued President Donald Trump and a group of federal agencies Friday for using federal funds on partisan campaign ads ahead of the November midterm elections.

“Weeks before a midterm election that will largely serve as a referendum on the President’s policies, the Trump Administration has turned the federal treasury into a campaign war chest,” the lawsuit charges.

“Over the past three weeks, the Administration has transferred millions of taxpayer funds to run thousands of illegal campaign ads that promote the Administration and attack the President’s opponents — all aimed at improving the chances of Republican Party candidates in the upcoming election.”

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the District of Columbia.

“To pay for this campaign, the Administration took money Congress appropriated for two very different purposes: securing the Nation’s borders, and honoring Department of Homeland Security employees, including those who died in the line of duty,” the lawsuit states.

Democracy Defenders Action and the law firm Hecker Fink filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin as well as Yee Leng Xiong, the Democratic candidate for state treasurer.

“The Trump administration has effectively looted the federal treasury, taking funds meant to protect our borders and honor fallen officers to finance their own election propaganda,” said Norm Eisen, co-founder and board member of Democracy Defenders Action. “This is an insult to every taxpayer in our country and an assault on our democracy, an attempt to tip the scales that is as desperate as it is offensive and illegal.” 

“When Wisconsinites turn on the TV, we want to watch the Brewers and Packers keep winning, not be insulted with our own tax dollars being wasted on ads to prop up a failing President,” said Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Devin Remiker.

The lawsuit says the federally funded ads that the Trump administration began running Sept. 23, featuring Trump, aired on broadcast, cable and streaming platforms, including Sunday political talk shows and college and professional football broadcasts.

“The timing, content, and context of these ads demonstrate that they have no legal non-electoral basis and were instead directed toward supporting the Republican Party and Republican candidates for partisan political offices in the upcoming election,” the lawsuit charges.

The ads ran between Sept. 23 and Sept. 29, airing at least 2,766 times, with one ad airing more than 1,300 times, the lawsuit states. It cites a New York Times article published Oct. 2 that reported the ads were produced under a $20 million contract using Homeland Security funds, as well as other reports by ABC, NBC and the Washington Post about the movement of funds to a Customs and Border Patrol account for commemorative events and the money’s subsequent use for the ads.

“The ads do none of the things for which this money was appropriated. None of the ads have any relation to ‘Line-of-Duty death memorials,’ ‘Department or agency anniversaries,’ or ‘commendation ceremonies.’ Nor do any of the ads relate to enhancing border security,” the lawsuit states.

While Trump announced Oct. 5 that his super PAC MAGA Inc. would pay for the ads, the White House said the super PAC would not reimburse more than $10 million that had been spent on the ads. In addition, the suit charges, on Oct. 6 the administration aired another taxpayer-funded ad praising the administration for its removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The ad campaign “strikes at the heart of our constitutional order,” the lawsuit declares. “The Constitution forbids the government from tipping the electoral scales. By deliberately launching these illegal ads in contemplation of, and with a view towards influencing, the 2026 federal and state mid-term elections, Defendants have interfered with the electoral process.”

In addition to Trump, the lawsuit names the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office, the Office of Management & Budget, and the heads of those agencies: Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott and OMB Director Russell Vought.

The ad campaign violates several federal laws, the suit charges. Those include a blanket ban on using federal appropriations “for publicity or propaganda purposes” in the U.S. as well as bans on “purely partisan activities” and “self-aggrandizement” by federal agencies.

The Trump ads “are ‘designed to aid’ Republican candidates and the Republican Party, and the ‘aggrandizement’ of President Trump,” the lawsuit charges.

In addition, the ads violate the federal Hatch Act, which prohibits political advocacy by federal officials, the suit charges. They also violate a federal law that blocks agencies from spending federal funds Congress hasn’t appropriated and blocks using appropriate funds “to pay a publicity expert unless the funds are specifically appropriated for that purpose,” the suit states.

Besides violating the U.S. Constitution by putting “the government’s thumb on the electoral scale,” the suit says the administration spent taxpayer funds on partisan ads without legal authority and in violation of federal laws, violated the Administrative Procedure Act and  exceeded the administration’s authority under federal laws.

“It is particularly egregious that Defendants have funded their illegal propaganda campaign by converting funds Congress appropriated to keep the citizens of this country safe and to commemorate Department of Homeland Security (‘DHS’) employees, including those who have died in the line of duty,” the lawsuit charges.

Misappropriating and misusing taxpayer funds for “partisan, self-aggrandizing, political propaganda inflicts real harm” on political candidates, the lawsuit charges, and the campaign further harms the plaintiffs because “it requires them to expend more financial and other resources to counter Defendants’ taxpayer-funded ads.”