Donald Trump defends Ken Paxton as statutory limits break

By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta · October 7, 2026

Donald Trump rallied for Ken Paxton in Texas, but using public funds and executive shortcuts for partisan gain establishes a precedent that fails the test of process.

The process of the rally and the cost of the tool

On October 7, 2026, Donald Trump spoke at a campaign rally at Freeman Coliseum in San Antonio, Texas. He came to rescue a statewide ticket coming apart in the open. Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general and nominee for the United States Senate, joined Trump on stage. Paxton had unseated incumbent John Cornyn in the Republican primary. The Guardian and NBC News reported that Roger Clemens introduced the former president. Outside the venue, Bexar County Democrats organized a protest across the street. The race pits Paxton against James Talarico, a Democratic state representative from Round Rock. Talarico raised over $27 million in the first quarter of 2026, breaking fundraising records. Trump dismissed his opponent as "Talafreako." He praised Paxton as "probably the greatest attorney general in the history of the state of Texas."

Yet the confidence on stage sat at odds with the record of the private rooms. Axios obtained an audio recording of Paxton at a Washington DC fundraiser. On the tape, Paxton admitted that his electoral troubles stem from the cost of living. "It’s not tariffs," Paxton stated, adding, "It’s the war, it’s gas prices, it’s diesel." Paxton conceded that these factors are entirely outside his control. Yonhap reported that a separate recording published by The New York Times revealed Paxton admitting that a recent Dallas convention "actually lowered our approval ratings." Trump told reporters he had "no regrets at all" regarding his endorsement. That loyalty is familiar. Process requires us to look past the rhetoric to the machinery of government funding the campaign.

The diversion of funds and the shadow of the past

The administrative machinery supporting the midterm push has triggered a federal challenge. On Wednesday, the Democratic National Committee filed a federal lawsuit in the US district court for the District of Columbia. The complaint states that using taxpayer dollars for political ads violates the statutory ban on appropriations for publicity or propaganda. According to the filing, President Trump personally directed the activity. The White House crafted the campaign, the Office of Management and Budget shifted $20 million, and US Customs and Border Protection carried it out. AdImpact reported that these pro-Trump ads have cost taxpayers more than $12 million so far. DNC chair Ken Martin called the maneuver a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans in November.

This diversion of public funds to bypass statutory prohibitions shares the exact mechanism of the Iran-Contra affair. In that scandal, senior Reagan administration officials used proceeds from secret arms sales to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. They defied the Boland Amendments passed by Congress to cut off legislative appropriations. The shared mechanism is the diversion of government funds and resources to bypass statutory prohibitions on legislative appropriations. The DNC complaint alleges that the executive branch took border security funds appropriated for CBP. Officials then funneled the money through contractors like LMD Agency Inc. to produce electoral propaganda. When the executive branch treats congressional appropriations as a slush fund for partisan messaging, it violates the separation of powers. It does so just as surely as did the secret routing of non-appropriated funds four decades ago. A rule that only works while your people hold power was never a rule at all.

The trade war at home and the test of a rule

Trade policy shows how executive actions taken in Washington create collateral damage for candidates in the states. Mike Rogers, the Republican nominee for the open US Senate seat in Michigan, released a campaign ad. Rogers stated, "Here in Michigan, we know that Canada is not our enemy," and called to end the tariff war now. The Trump administration previously imposed a 50 percent tariff and subsequent import bans on Canadian motor vehicles, dairy, and alcoholic beverages under Section 338 of the Tariff Act. The action followed the breakdown of bilateral trade negotiations. Executive proclamations codified those duties and import bans. When Rogers publicly broke with the White House, Trump dismissed the ad. On the trail, Trump claimed Rogers merely wanted Canada to make a deal.

The opposing case argues that executive trade authorities exist precisely to punish foreign discrimination. In this view, candidates must rally behind national economic defense rather than appeasing regional interests. Proponents maintain that public disagreement from nominees undermines the unified front needed to secure concessions from trading partners like Canada. Yet this defense ignores the legal reality of the statute and the economic reality on the ground. The statute was built to counter trade discrimination. It was never an unbridled tool for domestic maneuvering or for devastating allied manufacturing states without congressional sign-off. When a rule breaks the local economy of your own party's candidates, the reasoning cannot survive being used by the other side. Suppose a Democratic executive unilaterally shifted customs funds for campaign ads and imposed tariffs that crippled industrial states. Republicans would rightly demand an immediate injunction under the Administrative Procedure Act. The law must apply with equal force when our friends hold the pen.

Donald Trump defends Ken Paxton as statutory limits break

The process of the rally and the cost of the tool

The diversion of funds and the shadow of the past

The trade war at home and the test of a rule

Sources