Three television campaign advertisements "paid for by the U.S. government" and promoting President Donald Trump have drawn criticism from both parties as a flagrant breach of federal campaign law — yet, as veteran editor Terry H. Schwadron writes in an opinion column published by Alternet, no institution has moved to stop them.

Trump insists the ads — at least one of which is built largely on video imagery from his own 2024 presidential campaign, thundering against "warmongers" and "communists" — are a benign prod encouraging Americans to vote in the Nov. 3 congressional elections.

Using public tax dollars for a campaign commercial is flatly illegal, Schwadron argues, and doing so intentionally constitutes government propaganda, the preferred tool of authoritarian regimes that act with impunity. The effort appears to be just getting started: roughly $2.5 million has been spent so far, with plans to spend as much as $100 million — a figure that would dwarf spending to date.

An Enforcement Vacuum

In his view, a Justice Department remade to protect Trump and aggressively prosecute his political foes will not bring charges against the White House, nor even request a legal injunction to halt the spots. Schwadron asks where the state attorneys general are who might demand that courts pull the ads as illegal interference — and why television networks continue to sell commercial time for what he describes as clearly illegal campaign advertisements.

He likewise questions why the Senate is moving a bill to clean up the messy system for paying college athletes while ignoring a campaign violation that even Republicans — among them Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana — have called outrageous.

Backed by what he characterizes as a largely compliant Supreme Court, Trump has "cracked the code" on doing whatever he wants in the name of the presidency, Schwadron writes, upending the tradition that campaigns have been regarded as beyond the bounds of government behavior. Attorney General Todd Blanche and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are openly campaigning — with Hegseth broadly suggesting to U.S. troops that they vote Republican — in violation of separate Hatch Act prohibitions, the 1939 law that bars federal employees from partisan political activity tied to their official duties.

Apparent Target: Voter Turnout

The push, however late, is aimed at turnout: getting Republicans to act as though Trump himself is on the ballot and to vote anew for Republican candidates who will not question his presidency. The stakes reach beyond any single race, since the Nov. 3 elections will shape the balance of power in a Congress that holds the levers of lawmaking, government funding, and oversight of the executive branch. Turnout, Schwadron notes, is pivotal even in elections where manipulation appears to be part of the accepted game.

The apparent calculation, he suggests, is that incessant talk of "blue wave" outcomes — grounded in polling that has systematically shown Trump's backing falling and "generic" support for Democratic opponents rising — will prove an overconfident miscalculation if huge numbers of Trump supporters show up on Election Day.

He concedes that national polls do not accurately predict local elections, particularly at a moment of voter anger over high prices and concern about the war with Iran, tariffs, international isolation, the excesses of the administration mass deportation policies, and what he calls runaway "corruption" and self-adulation projects.

That still does not answer, Schwadron writes, why Trump — who is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in Republican contributions — insists on spending millions of taxpayer dollars on ads that promote himself.

The Limits of Polling

Polling is the best tool available for collecting people's transient political ideas, but it is no gauge of how many people will actually turn out to vote, he argues — particularly in states where Trump-friendly election officials are closing selected voting precincts and the White House is pursuing sweeping schemes to limit who can vote, how they can vote, and when. Democrats and voting-rights lawyers, he notes, are working to block each new restriction. Poll results, in his view, are best used as a comparative snapshot rather than a scientific picture of the state of play.

More importantly, serious students of voter behavior — including the influential, nonpartisan Cook Political Report — see plenty of evidence in a sufficient number of local elections that matches the national unhappiness with the administration, Schwadron writes. Together with an enthused Democratic voter base and an angered independent reaction, that may give Trump reason to rally his would-be supporters.

He calls Trump's latest ploy — using taxpayer money to promote himself — "ludicrously desperate": the president wants his base to pretend he is on the ballot, yet defends the use of public funds for the ads on the grounds that his name will not appear on it. The episode, Schwadron concludes, is a reminder to watch what politicians do rather than what they say, and the very presence of the illegal taxpayer-paid ads should raise questions about the anti-democratic principles driving Trump's presidency.

About the Author

Terry H. Schwadron retired as a senior editor at The New York Times, served as Deputy Managing Editor at The Los Angeles Times, and held leadership roles at The Providence (RI) Journal-Bulletin. He was part of a Pulitzer Gold Medal team in Los Angeles, and his teams shared in several Pulitzers in New York.