A federal judge has temporarily frozen a $20 million government funding stream for television advertisements featuring President Donald Trump, ordering the administration to cancel remaining placements less than a month before the November midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued the temporary restraining order at 6:45 p.m. Sunday in the Southern District of New York. Her four-page order stays both a Sept. 20 Customs and Border Protection purchase order with advertising contractor LMD Agency and an Office of Management and Budget apportionment of $20 million for the campaign.
The order bars federal officials and contractors from spending Department of Homeland Security money to develop, place or air the challenged ads. It also requires the administration to cancel remaining television slots, stop future payments under the purchase order and file a compliance report within 24 hours. The restrictions last 14 days unless the court extends them.
A preliminary ruling, not a final judgment
Rochon did not issue a final decision that the advertisements are illegal. She found the plaintiffs had shown they were likely to succeed on the merits, faced irreparable harm without relief, and satisfied the other requirements for an injunction. A fuller opinion is expected, and the case will continue.
The judge also rejected the administration’s argument that the request had become moot because the campaign was scheduled to end. Associated Press reported that Justice Department lawyers said the challenged conduct would end Sunday, while the court nevertheless directed the government to cancel placements scheduled for that evening and prohibited new or expanded agreements during the order’s term.
The lawsuit was brought by Common Cause, Alabama state House candidate Robert Hunter, Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ and its political action committee. Their Oct. 7 complaint alleges that the ads were political propaganda rather than legitimate public-service announcements and that money appropriated for border-security purposes was redirected without congressional authorization.
Those claims remain allegations. The administration has defended the spots as public communications similar to advertisements used by prior presidents. Trump called them a positive promotion for the country and said future ads would be financed by his political organization rather than taxpayers. The White House said there were no immediate plans to reimburse the government for money already spent, according to separate reporting by Reuters and AP.
The dispute centers on Congress’s power of the purse
The plaintiffs’ central statutory argument rests on a basic federal spending rule. Under 31 U.S.C. §1301, appropriations must be used for the purposes Congress specified unless another law provides otherwise. The complaint says OMB and DHS violated that requirement by financing political messaging with funds designated for border security, technology, screening and related commemorative activities.
The suit also cites an appropriations restriction that bars spending on unauthorized publicity or propaganda. That phrase does not prohibit every administration from promoting a policy. The Government Accountability Office has long distinguished legitimate public information from three prohibited categories: covert propaganda, self-aggrandizement and purely partisan material. In a prior appropriations decision, the GAO explained that the restriction reaches communications that are completely political and lack a sufficient connection to official agency work.
That distinction will be central when the court addresses the merits. The government contends the campaign communicated administration policy and falls within historical practice. The plaintiffs argue the ads focused on Trump personally, attacked political opponents and, in one instance, substantially reproduced material from his 2024 campaign. Rochon’s order says only that the challengers are likely to prevail based on the record now before her; it does not resolve every factual or legal dispute.
Why the timing matters
The ads began airing in late September and appeared during national programming, including football broadcasts, as voting was beginning in parts of the country. The campaign drew criticism from both parties. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said taxpayer money should not pay for it, AP reported.
The order therefore has an immediate operational effect even though it is temporary. It removes the government-funded ads from the air during a consequential period of the campaign and prevents the agencies from reviving or enlarging the challenged contracts while the court considers the case.
It also leaves broader questions unanswered. The Democratic National Committee has filed a separate challenge in Washington, and the New York case could continue after the two-week order expires. The court must still decide whether the funding decisions exceeded statutory authority and whether the messages crossed the legal line separating government information from partisan advocacy.
For now, the most significant result is narrow but concrete: the $20 million apportionment is stayed, remaining placements must be canceled, and taxpayers cannot finance additional versions of the five named advertisements while Rochon’s order is in effect. The required compliance report will provide the next factual checkpoint, while the promised full opinion should explain which statutory arguments persuaded the court and how broadly its reasoning may apply to future government advertising.
