Skip to content

Government & PolicyDeveloping

Trump administration airs taxpayer-funded ads promoting the president ahead of midterms

By

Coverage spectrum

Covered by 8 outlets, mostly left-leaning (75%).

16 articles in total, 4 of them opinion. The spectrum counts each outlet once and leaves opinion out. How we measure bias

The Trump administration has been running a series of taxpayer-funded television ads that promote President Trump’s record, including his military actions against Iran and Venezuela, while labeling them “public service announcements.” Reports say the campaign has cost between $2.5 million and $5.5 million so far, with plans to spend up to $20 million, reportedly drawn from Department of Homeland Security funds. One spot, “God Made Trump,” has drawn particular attention. The New York Times reported that aide Natalie Harp helped select flattering footage of Trump for the ads at his direction. The White House has defended the campaign as “educational” and “unapologetically patriotic,” while critics, including some Democrats and watchdogs, say it may violate the Hatch Act. FCC Chair Brendan Carr said the ads do not “raise any red flags.”

Headline and summary written by Mantle’s AI from the coverage below, under published rules. How this works

What happened

Key points

Each point shows who reports it, from Far Left to Far Right.

  1. The ads are funded by taxpayer money and labeled “public service announcements” by the administration.

    Reported byLeftCenterRight

  2. The campaign has cost at least several million dollars already, with reported figures ranging from $2.5 million to $5.5 million, and plans to spend up to $20 million total.

    Reported byLeftCenterRight

  3. The ads reportedly draw on Department of Homeland Security funds.

    Reported byLeft

  4. One ad, titled “God Made Trump,” was shown at a Republican midterm convention and features a narrator saying “God made Trump.”

    Reported byLeft

  5. The New York Times reported that Trump aide Natalie Harp helped select footage glorifying Trump for use in the ads.

    Reported byLeft

Show 2 more pointsShow fewer points

  1. FCC Chair Brendan Carr said the ads “don’t raise any red flags.”

    Reported byCenter

  2. Trump has defended the spending, saying it is “for the country.”

    Reported byLeft

What is contested

Where accounts differ

Points the coverage does not agree on, and who says what.

  • The exact cost of the ad campaign so far.

    The Hill (opinion) cites $2.5 million spent and $20 million planned; the Daily Mail cites $5.5 million already spent; other outlets reference the $20 million total DHS allocation without specifying amounts spent to date.

  • Whether the ads are legal.

    A Hill opinion piece and The New Republic call the ads “blatantly illegal” and a Hatch Act violation; the White House and FCC Chair Brendan Carr defend them as lawful public service announcements that raise no concerns.

  • Whether the ads constitute legitimate public communication or self-promotion.

    The administration describes the ads as “educational” and “unapologetically patriotic”; left-leaning and some center outlets characterize them as propaganda or a vehicle for Trump to glorify himself.

How each side tells it

Compare views

  • the left

    6 outlets · 1 opinion

    Left-leaning outlets, especially the opinion pieces from The New Republic and the news reporting from The Daily Beast and Independent, frame the ads as propaganda and self-glorification, while mainstream left outlets like the Times and ABC use more descriptive but still pointed language about taxpayer-funded self-promotion.

    Trump aide Natalie Harp played major role to ensure he was Loaded modifier“properly glorified”Presents the ads’ favorable portrayal of Trump as an editorial judgment rather than a neutral description.More neutral: portrayed favorablyDisagree with this highlight? in taxpayer-funded ads: report
    The IndependentLeftAll left-leaning headlines

  • the center

    1 outlet

    Center outlets report the ad spending and officials’ reactions in a largely descriptive tone, though one Hill opinion piece directly calls the ads “blatantly illegal.”

    FCC chief: Taxpayer-funded ads touting Trump 'don't raise any red flags'
    The HillCenterAll center headlines

  • the right

    1 outlet

    The single right-leaning outlet frames Trump as unapologetic about the spending while using colorful, mocking descriptions of the ads themselves.

    'Unapologetic' Trump Loaded verb“brazenly defends”Characterizes the White House's defense with a judgmental adverb implying shamelessness rather than neutrally describing the act.More neutral: defendsDisagree with this highlight? using $5.5MILLION of taxpayers' money to fund Loaded modifier“fawning”Describes the ads' tone in a dismissive, judgmental way rather than neutrally.More neutral: complimentaryDisagree with this highlight? 'Love Me' TV ads... and he's set to spend even more
    Daily MailRightAll right-leaning headlines

The words they chose

Language to notice

Words that carry a judgement beyond the facts. Tap a highlighted word anywhere on the page to see why.

  • Left15

    Propagandaexperts have said is illegalCritics sayhated rivals

  • Center4

    Propagandaswatted awaysparked outrageblatantly illegal

  • Right2

    brazenly defendsfawning

In the outlets’ own words

  • Delegitimizing label

    PropagandaMore neutral: Ad

    Labels the ads as propaganda in the outlet's own voice before detailing the facts, presenting a contested characterization as settled.

    Trump Airs Iran War Propaganda Paid For By U.S.

    Used byMeidasTouch (Far Left)The Hill (Center)The Daily Beast (Far Left)

  • Vague attribution

    experts have said is illegalMore neutral: according to Public Citizen

    Attributes a legal conclusion to unnamed “experts” without identifying who made the claim.

    …from the administration paid for by millions in public funds that experts have said is illegal.

    Used byMeidasTouch (Far Left)

  • Loaded verb

    swatted awayMore neutral: dismissed

    Characterizes Carr's response as dismissive rather than neutrally describing his statement.

    Federal Communications Commission (FCC) head Brendan Carr swatted away concerns about a pro-Trump TV advertisement billed as a public service announcement…

    Used byThe Hill (Center)

  • Loaded verb

    sparked outrageMore neutral: drew criticism from (name who)

    Outrage from whom? Name the critics and their number.

    …about a pro-Trump TV advertisement billed as a public service announcement that sparked outrage from Democrats and government watchdogs this week.

    Used byThe Hill (Center)

Show 16 more phrasesShow fewer

  • Vague attribution

    Critics sayMore neutral: Public Citizen and some lawmakers say

    Attributes a legal claim to unnamed critics without specifying who.

    Critics say the ads, which are running weeks before the November midterm elections, violate…

    Used byThe Independent (Left)

  • Loaded modifier

    hated rivalsMore neutral: networks that have clashed with Trump

    Presents CNN and MS NOW's relationship with Trump in emotionally charged terms rather than describing it factually.

    Trump takes his taxpayer funded ads to the airwaves of hated rivals CNN and MS NOW

    Used byThe Independent (Left)

  • Vague attribution

    facing growing questionsMore neutral: facing questions from Democrats and watchdog groups

    Implies mounting scrutiny without specifying who is raising the questions.

    The Trump administration is facing growing questions for spending millions of taxpayer dollars to air unusual TV ads promoting…

    Used byABC News (Left)

  • Absolutist framing

    blatantly illegalMore neutral: allegedly illegal

    States a contested legal question as an established fact.

    Trump's taxpayer-funded propaganda is blatantly illegal

    Used byThe Hill (Center)

  • Loaded verb

    brazenly defendsMore neutral: defends

    Characterizes the White House's defense with a judgmental adverb implying shamelessness rather than neutrally describing the act.

    'Unapologetic' Trump brazenly defends using $5.5MILLION of taxpayers' money to fund fawning 'Love Me' TV ads...

    Used byDaily Mail (Right)

  • Loaded modifier

    fawningMore neutral: complimentary

    Describes the ads' tone in a dismissive, judgmental way rather than neutrally.

    'Unapologetic' Trump brazenly defends using $5.5MILLION of taxpayers' money to fund fawning 'Love Me' TV ads...

    Used byDaily Mail (Right)

  • Loaded verb

    glorifyingMore neutral: promoting

    Characterizes the ads' purpose with a judgmental term rather than a neutral description.

    Donald Trump’s White House has made 13 taxpayer-funded ads glorifying the president, including one that solemnly declares: “God made Trump.” CNN has…

    Used byThe Daily Beast (Far Left)

  • Sensational language

    Cranks UpMore neutral: Increases

    Adds dramatic flair to describe an increase in ad spending rather than stating it plainly.

    Trump Cranks Up His Propaganda Ad Blitz

    Used byThe Daily Beast (Far Left)

  • Sensational language

    staggeringly corruptMore neutral: legally questionable

    Uses an extreme, judgmental characterization rather than a neutral description of the spending.

    …service announcements.” The move is vintage Trump in that the ads are both staggeringly corrupt—the administration is spending $20 million of the Department of Homeland…

    Used byThe New Republic (Far Left)

  • Loaded modifier

    propagandizing slopMore neutral: promotional content

    Dismisses the ads' content with a derogatory term rather than describing them neutrally.

    …of Homeland Security’s money on them, in violation of the Hatch Act—and propagandizing slop.

    Used byThe New Republic (Far Left)

  • Absolutist framing

    IllegalMore neutral: Disputed

    States a contested legal conclusion as settled fact in the headline.

    Trump’s Illegal Campaign Ads Are an Admission of Defeat

    Used byThe New Republic (Far Left)

  • Sensational language

    Admission of DefeatMore neutral: Political Strategy

    Frames the ad campaign with a dramatic political interpretation rather than describing it factually.

    Trump’s Illegal Campaign Ads Are an Admission of Defeat

    Used byThe New Republic (Far Left)

  • Loaded modifier

    glorifying himselfMore neutral: promoting himself favorably

    Characterizes the ads’ purpose in a judgmental way rather than describing their content neutrally.

    …a key role in helping the president turn taxpayer money into a vehicle for glorifying himself, a new report reveals.

    Used byThe Daily Beast (Far Left)

  • Delegitimizing label

    Propaganda BlitzMore neutral: ad campaign

    Labels the ad campaign as propaganda rather than describing it neutrally as a government ad campaign.

    Natalie Harp’s Role in Trump’s Propaganda Blitz Exposed

    Used byThe Daily Beast (Far Left)

  • Sensational language

    ExposedMore neutral: detailed

    Frames routine reporting as a dramatic revelation of wrongdoing.

    Natalie Harp’s Role in Trump’s Propaganda Blitz Exposed

    Used byThe Daily Beast (Far Left)

  • Loaded modifier

    properly glorifiedMore neutral: portrayed favorably

    Presents the ads’ favorable portrayal of Trump as an editorial judgment rather than a neutral description.

    Trump aide Natalie Harp played major role to ensure he was properly glorified in taxpayer-funded ads: report

    Used byThe Independent (Left)

See the full language guide

See for yourself

Side by side

What each side leads with and what it leaves out. Open a side to read its headlines.

From the left

6 outlets · 1 opinion

Leads with

  • alleged illegality and Hatch Act concerns
  • use of taxpayer and DHS funds
  • Trump’s personal involvement in ad content
  • aide Natalie Harp’s role in shaping footage

Leaves out

  • FCC chair Brendan Carr’s comment that the ads raise no concerns

Reported by other sides, not found in this side’s coverage.

See the 7 headlines from the leftHide the headlines

From the center

1 outlet

Leads with

  • dollar amounts spent and planned
  • official reactions from the FCC and White House
  • content of the ads, including military footage

Leaves out

  • Natalie Harp’s specific role in selecting footage

Reported by other sides, not found in this side’s coverage.

See the headline from the centerHide the headlines

From the right

1 outlet

Leads with

  • dollar amount spent
  • Trump’s public defense of the ads
  • patriotic and military imagery in the ads

Leaves out

  • Natalie Harp’s role in shaping the ads
  • Hatch Act legal concerns

Reported by other sides, not found in this side’s coverage.

See the headline from the rightHide the headlines
  • Daily MailRight

    'Unapologetic' Trump Loaded verb“brazenly defends”Characterizes the White House's defense with a judgmental adverb implying shamelessness rather than neutrally describing the act.More neutral: defendsDisagree with this highlight? using $5.5MILLION of taxpayers' money to fund Loaded modifier“fawning”Describes the ads' tone in a dismissive, judgmental way rather than neutrally.More neutral: complimentaryDisagree with this highlight? 'Love Me' TV ads... and he's set to spend even more

    The TV commercials pushed patriotic imagery and videos of Trump's accomplishments, as well as a promise that America 'will never be a communist country.'

    Read at Daily Mail (opens in a new tab)

Articles you open from here build My Mix, a private picture of how your reading spreads across the spectrum, kept on this device. What is My Mix?

The left is Far Left and Left together. The right is Right and Far Right together. Every outlet keeps its own five-point rating.

Who reported it when

How the coverage built up

  • Left

    First to report

    MeidasTouch, Oct 1, 8:02 AM EDT

  • Center

    1 hr 21 min later

    Its first report, Oct 1, 9:23 AM EDT

  • Right

    1 day 11 hr later

    Its first report, Oct 2, 7:47 PM EDT

See the order the outlets reported inHide the order
  1. MeidasTouchFar LeftOct 1, 8:02 AM EDT
  2. The GuardianLeftOct 1, 8:05 AM EDT
  3. The HillCenterOct 1, 9:23 AM EDT
  4. The IndependentLeftOct 1, 1:23 PM EDT
  5. ABC NewsLeftOct 1, 5:27 PM EDT
  6. The New York TimesLeftOct 2, 3:36 PM EDT
  7. Daily MailRightOct 2, 7:47 PM EDT
  8. The Daily BeastFar LeftOct 2, 11:31 PM EDT

Times are the ones the outlets published in their own feeds, in Eastern time. Opinion is left out.

Read next

Help someone else find the truth beneath the surface

Most people see one side of a story. Share this one, so they can see how every side is telling it and decide for themselves.

Email it

Seen a mistake? Tell us what is wrong with this page