Jennifer Rochon rightly bars Trump ads to enforce spending law

By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta · October 12, 2026

Judge Jennifer Rochon rightly halted taxpayer-funded Trump ads, barring the executive branch from using agency accounts for partisan campaigns and upholding strict limits on public spending.

Public money diverted for political ads

The temptation to spend other people's money on one's own glorification is older than the republic. It usually arrives with some pretense of shame. The Department of Homeland Security dispensed $20 million from Customs and Border Protection accounts. The White House styled this as "OBBBA commemorative events," according to reporting from CNN. The money funded campaign-style ads depicting President Donald Trump and his administration's border security efforts. These aired on CBS, CNN, MS NOW, Fox News, and Fox, as CNN reported. One of these spots was nearly identical to a Trump campaign ad, noted CBC News. The White House Office of Management and Budget allocated the funds from money set aside by Congress, as Axios and CBC News detailed. Common Cause, Democracy Forward, and the Democratic National Committee filed lawsuits in federal court. The Justice Department rushed in late Saturday to promise that the ads would expire on Sunday anyway, according to Politico and CNN. That defense treats a temporary restraining order like a traffic ticket you can outrun. It assumes the constitutional violation is practically finished so nobody should worry about an injunction.

The Creel model of official persuasion

This deployment of independent bureaucratic machinery to manufacture public support for an executive agenda has a distinct lineage. During the First World War, the Committee on Public Information harnessed official agency power to mobilize the home front behind Woodrow Wilson. Here, the administration simply repurposed the operational accounts of law enforcement to push its political messaging. We saw a similar blur of official power and political self-preservation during the Trump administration (2017-2021). That administration repeatedly tested the limits of executive agencies to promote policy arguments that overlapped with partisan goals. The White House maintained that the spots were routine public service announcements. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told CBS News that he welcomed the chance to "brag about America." But the distinction between national pride and partisan promotion vanishes when the ads mirror a presidential campaign spot down to the framing. As the plaintiffs noted in filings tracked by NBC News and AP News, there is no legal justification for this conduct. A president cannot use the machinery of government and funds set aside by Congress for other uses to influence electoral outcomes. When the executive branch treats the Treasury as a discretionary slush fund for incumbent advertising, it revives state propaganda. That is the exact mechanism our separation of powers was designed to choke off.

When opponents hold the tool

The gravest error in constitutional law is building a procedural shortcut that you would weep to see your enemies operate. Consider what follows if we permit the Department of Homeland Security to spend operational funds on television spots featuring the sitting president. These broadcasts aired weeks before a midterm election. Consider a Democratic administration taking the Customs and Border Protection account, or the Department of Defense budget. It might use vendors like LMD Agency, Inc., which received millions in past awards. If it airs spots celebrating its own legislative triumphs right before voters cast ballots, conservatives would rightly denounce it as a corrupt abuse of federal power. We test every shortcut against the day our opponents hold the tool. Legal experts in CBC News reports cited the rule against using congressionally appropriated money for publicity or propaganda. That restriction exists precisely to prevent the incumbent from tilting the playing field with public capital. If the executive can divert funds meant for border enforcement into television buys, appropriations laws become mere suggestions. The ballot box then becomes an auction house where the currency is stolen from the taxpayer.

The court steps in before the damage spreads

U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon, a Joe Biden appointee sitting in the Southern District of New York, did precisely what the moment demanded. On Sunday, October 11, 2026, she issued a temporary restraining order halting the ad buy, as CNN and AP News reported. Judge Rochon found that the plaintiffs demonstrated they were likely to succeed on the merits, according to Axios and NBC News. She also found that they would suffer irreparable harm. The Justice Department pleaded late Saturday that the ads were ending anyway. That plea did not render the controversy moot. The administration still maintained through a White House spokesperson that it had no plans to reimburse the government for funds already spent, as CNN and Axios noted. The court's intervention was measured and correct. It blocked further ad buys and halted a clear breach of appropriations law. We must judge the process by whether the reasoning survives its use by the other side. A rule that halts executive propaganda holds firm no matter whose name is on the marquee.

Jennifer Rochon rightly bars Trump ads to enforce spending law

Public money diverted for political ads

The Creel model of official persuasion

When opponents hold the tool

The court steps in before the damage spreads

Sources