Trump posted the ad at Truth Social, here.
September 28, 2026
"The spot is the latest in a series of pro-Trump ads funded by public money."
"Some ethics experts have argued that the Trump administration is violating federal laws banning the use of taxpayer dollars for propaganda, and the ads have drawn criticism from both parties. The most recent ad, one expert argued, is a more flagrant violation given its prior use in the political arena."
Posts
101 comments:
Truth is propaganda got it
The so-called "experts" are Norm Eisen and that Painter guy at Minnesota Law. Complete partisan hacks! And both are deeply infected with TDS.
If the NYT was a serious newspaper, it would pick better experts for their story. These two are not credible.
Sen. John Kennedy is an impressive legal intellect. Vandy undergrad, UVA Law and Oxford. Just saw him in Weeping Water, NE at a Sen. Ricketts rally. Funny guy!
He makes a fair point. But I can imagine POTUS wants to be a little aggressive and push back against the Fake News. There's no law prohibiting pushing the limits.
Do they identify specifically which federal law this might violate? It can't be a campaign spending related one, as Trump is not running (and can not run) for a third term.
How dare anyone speak out against the Crime Syndicate that is the Democrat Party.
The Iran "war" really isn't much of a war. It's a project that if successful - could lead to economic prosperity and freedom.
Not just for the US, but for the ME and beyond.
Leftists HATE that.
The Democrats use donations and tax dollars to fund their fraud.
They can all ES&D.
Neo-Nazi grifting Leftism and Radical Islam = we get why they are perfect for each other.
“Some ethics experts…”
Yeah? Well they can go put their opinions where the Sun does not gain purchase.
I didn’t hear Trump promoting a candidate. Unless Trump is running again? Is Trump running again?
The best part about being an "ethics expert" is that you don't need any. It's the perfect grift.
Didn’t he fire Kristi Noem for spending $20 mill on an ad campaign featuring herself?
I saw the add Saturday during the Ohio State game with no preconceptions. I thought what the hell is this? Forgetting any legal issues, if I were a Democrat, I would run that ad over and over again, freezing on the part where it was paid by the taxpayers. It is nothing but cringe for swing voters and I expect will be totally counterproductive at the polls.
“Expel the warmongers”? Does that include himself? Yay!
He should avoid these kinds of kerfuffles. It’s distracting from the message. There’s enough cash in R accounts to run these to remind voters of his agenda.
"He should avoid these kinds of kerfuffles" Amen, Breezy!
Streisand Effect.
Anyone can be an "expert." Much ado about zilch.
So is it “new” or did it just “return” or do the authors of this hit piece ever decide?
Stray Voltage
'...“The president and his administration have gone from breaking the law to trampling it,” said Norm Eisen...'
The motivation exposed.
'...While it is not clear how much the government is spending to air the ads, the figure appears to be more than $1 million, according to an AdImpact modeled estimate based on media markets....'
The lede, buried.
...'“We do not allow government-sponsored propaganda in the United States.”....'
Let's see, which President was it that put the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 in place, which amended the original Smith-Mundt Act to allow U.S. government-produced media content to be disseminated domestically ? Let's see who was that exactly? Was it Obama? Has it backfired? Is that what this mewling is all about?
I saw the ad during a football game. I couldn't believe that Trump was again asserting that he would take on the deep state and the "warmongers" given what he has done, but it turns out that the ad is a list of the promises that made me vote for him, and the very promises that make me felled so betrayed by him. I think that this propaganda blast is just going to infuriate the part of his base that has been subtracted from the coalition, in order to make you guys' MAGA more pure. Usually politicians succeed by added to their coalitions and increasing their votes, but Trump has had the brilliant idea of making his appeal more selective.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-disavows-supporters-pushing-jeffrey-epstein-bulls-dont-want-supp-rcna219078
Trump kicked me out of MAGA himself.
It's an old Trump ad already paid for by the Trump For President campaign and posted on Trump's own website. I don't see where it's "taxpayer funded" or government involved at all.
Sounds like it's just Democrat Party propagandists lying to incite their braindead anti-American minions and muddy the waters, again.
Am I missing something?
…experts are only interested in violations of public law when Republicans do it. Experts are kept in the dark when the liberal judiciary and Democrats in the states help facilitate trillion dollars in fraud or facilitate voter fraud. Experts are stupid…
"Experts say.........", these days experts saying anything is immediate cause for skepticism if not outright denial
Democrats love to make threats about what they’ll do to you when they return to power so just an observation back at them- those Republicans that are protecting your racket, some of them are slowly being voted out, some of them are vegetables, and you expect your commie allies will take their place…take a lesson from some of your political elders and be careful of believing your own propaganda. Those new people we’re trying to vote in, they’re as mad at you as the rest of us…
Wasn't Norm Eisen the guy funding numerous lawfare attacks against the President including the effort to keep Trump off the ballot in CO in 2024?
Ooh now with even MORE flagrancy! Pass the smelling salts.
I think it’s kind of funny- every Democrat with a fighting chance is running against Trump so why shouldn’t he show an ad?
I could make a convincing lawyerly argument that the ad isn’t and ad but historical record since Trump isn’t running for office…
Aggie fingers the culprit, BHO, who signed the law repealing the anti-propaganda act that served us well until we elected him as our first Communist president. He is still campaigning for commies even as we reminisce about the Smith-Mundt Act and how Obama “modernized” it.
Without a call to action is it a “campaign” ad?
“Trump kicked me out of MAGA himself.”
Good on Trump! No pansies allowed.
Here we go again. Once again we get the phony x-burts and phony "ethics" which only apply when its Trump. And of course "Both parties" attack Trump, because RINOS never shut up and never stop helping the Left.
Norm Eisen of The Contrarian with Jennifer Rubin? That impartial expert?
Hating Trump automatically qualifies you as an ethics expert. Did you know that? Yeah. It's not that hard to get the credential nowadays. So if you always wanted to be an ethics expert, now is the time.
Mark Elias is the Democrat lawyer that does the wet work for the party. Norm Eisen is the Democrat lawyer that oversees all of the lawfare efforts against Trump. If there is a lawsuit attacking Trump or the administration, Eisen is behind it. His life mission is to harass at every opportunity.
Articles of Impeachment- page 14,263
The crowd "Booing" according to People Magazine (D)
Sad. All our glossy magazines are soviet.
“His life mission is to harass at every opportunity.”
…this is why I haven’t hated lawyers enough in my life. Not because of pond scum like these gigs but the complacency from the rest of youse and the bars as they destroy normal people’s confidence in the justice system.
Show me where he used tax payer dollars.
Remember -the corrupt left use OUR tax dollars to fund their crime.
I'm sort of puzzled as to where the "government funding" angle comes in.
Trump and the Republicans have more than enough campaign money to fund what appears to be a garden-variety (and practically free) ad--on Trump's own social network.
What am I missing?
Inga - Tell us your deep thoughts (without shuffling off to Candy Owens) On the Iran "war".
Are you hoping for failure?
Do you BACK the Islamic theocratic regime and hope it remains in power?
Do you understand that most Iranians want to rid their nation of forced Islamic theocracy and that old corrupt regime?
Do you agree Iran's Islamic thugs fund terror in the region?
Are you bothered by Islamic theocracy?
Do you care about the women and girls who are harmed, enslaved, subjugated and murdered under Islamic theocracy?
Hi Aggie! I totally agree that the spending number is important and could’ve been highlighted more in the Times piece. I’m just not sure the Smith-Mundt Act gets at the main issue. The 2012 update was bipartisan and mostly made content like Voice of America programming, originally intended for overseas audiences, more readily available here at home.
The trickier question is where legitimate government advocacy ends and taxpayer-funded partisan advocacy begins. It can be difficult to draw a bright line, because any administration is allowed to promote and defend its policies in positive terms. This situation stands out because it reportedly used material originating with Donald Trump’s campaign, which makes that distinction especially interesting.
"Show me where he used tax payer dollars."
Have you seen one of the spots on television? They were on during the Bills game I was watching, and right at the end it says "Paid for by the US Government."
"No pansies allowed."
Purification through subtraction. The antiwar vote got crossover votes from young black and hispanic men, many Sanders voters, a lot from the antiwar right, and if Trump can get along without our votes, well, that''s democracy. It remains to be seen.
"Show me where he used tax payer dollars."
Watch the freaking ad. The ad says it is paid for by the U.S. Government.
This doesn't give me a lot of agita, because I think that the spots will hurt Trump. The spot is infuriating.
"He should avoid these kinds of kerfuffles. It’s distracting from the message."
"If you don't know me by now,
You will never ever know me, who-eyu-eyoo."
Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes
tommyesq said... : "Do they identify specifically which federal law this might violate? It can't be a campaign spending related one, as Trump is not running (and can not run) for a third term."
In actual fact, there is nothing that prohibits Trump from RUNNING for a 3rd term -- if he wins, he is simply prohibited from SERVING.
I wanted Trump to burn down the whole system in DC, but he got co-opted, who knows what is in the Epstein files. I would have bet against them having anything on Trump until he did his u-turn on the Epstein files and became the warmonger he promised us in that very ad that he would not be.
The Epstein files are like the Ring of Power, we were hoping that Trump was Frodo, but it turns out that he is Gollum.
LOL - Sanders voters are mostly communists & are as far left as it gets. They would never vote for Trump anyway.
AS far as the ad saying "paid for by the US government" - I didn't see it.
The Epstein files were released.
Biden never did that. Why?
Imtay:
"https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-disavows-supporters-pushing-jeffrey-epstein-bulls-dont-want-supp-rcna219078"
Buh-bye. You and MTG have the place all to yourselves. Whatever that place is.
And yet Sanders voters were important to flipping some states, that the Democrats had marked down as permanently blue, red.
https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320
That is just the first article that I found. Reagan also won over a lot of Democrats, me among them, but I was a Republican for decades, Trump threw it away with his stupid war.
IM Tay - we get it. You are a democrat now. Enjoy the decline.
Bernie Sanders is a fraud. I cannot change that.
It's a sad fact.
Oligarchy!
There are plenty of files that were not released, and the ones released were heavily redacted.
"You and MTG have the place all to yourselves"
You forgot Tucker, Masse, Joe Kent, Robert Barnes, but I guess that none of them bring any people with them, except both Masse and Kent are polling significantly among Republicans for POTUS 2028.
It's not just the two of us.
Personally, I’d like to see him do some ads that describe how socialism has really worked every time it’s been tried. It’s not the antidote to low affordability people are led to believe it is. Socialism has some major costs that its advocates never mention. Trump should drive the cost side of the dispute.
We heard you the first time - IM TAY.
and the second and the third ..blah blah blah. At his point you sound like a bot. Or you are paid by the Islamic lobby.
There is no such thing as "ethics experts."
"Bernie Sanders is a fraud."
I guess that is why Sanders voters were drawn to Trump, they like frauds.
Did you watch the part of the spot about Trump being agains "the warmongers"?
War is Peace.
There must be a lot in old Trump ads and speeches that could be used against him now.
I don't really get how a reused 2024 ad is "paid for by the U.S. government." Or why Trump would have needed to use government money to buy the time for it. Is Trump trolling, or shooting himself in the foot again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Painter
Totally unbiased "Republican" ethics expert. Sure.
This called the bully pulpit.
And I'm not surprised many of the usual suspects have never heard of it.
“Captain BillieBob said...
"Experts say........."
Lest we forget, in 2020 one of those “experts” who was saying, was Anthony Fauci. And the government’s expert on medical ethics was … Mrs. Anthony Fauci!
"You forgot Tucker, Masse, Joe Kent, Robert Barnes, but I guess that none of them bring any people with them, except both Masse and Kent are polling significantly among Republicans for POTUS 2028."
Yea, those guys. No, I didn't forget about them. I just mostly don't think about them. Good luck in 2028. And Tucker Carlson. Really?
Laws?.
We dont need no stinking laws
You put down due process and justice when you advocate wealth and weapons settling border and legal issues, annie.
This is the world you've worked for... 💪
In Theodore Roosevelt's day a primary political tactic was known as "whistle-stop campaigning". A train consisting of an engine and several private cars would follow rail routes with many contested states or districts in its schedule. At each stop, the candidate would make a speech, often from the trailing car's platform. If said candidate happened to be the incumbent POTUS, some of the expense came from public funds, particularly the charges for the train itself.
I know Sanders voters - THEY HATE TRUMP.
Thanks to McCain Feingold - both parties get our tax dollars to fund their campaigns.
Maybe th3y will all drop on their swords and take one for team America, Inga?
I fear...there will be blood.
The Old Testament minds currently in charge only know an eye for an eye. Pray for Israel's children now... 🇺🇸 ✝️ 🕊 🌎
🇺🇸 >🇮🇱
Like Muhammed Ali said, not my religious state, not my battle to fight... Most Americans think like he did, the Iran war is as popular as VietNam out here. Dont let Ann's propaganda bots or personal isolation fool ya...
(I hope begley tips well for you to surrender your platform to his dominant opinions like that... good girl, annie.)
Who pays "peachy" to post here? Curious...
Poor imTay hasn't figured out that being against warmongers requires one to be against Iran, which has been supporting and subsidizing war and terrorism in dozens countries for ~47 years now. Finishing off their evil regime will vastly reduce the amount of war in the world.
Quaestor (9:46am):
Not just TR. Truman won reelection in 1948, contrary to all expectations, with a whistlestop tour of the U.S. in which he told large crowds that Thomas E. Dewey, of all people, was just like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini.
I'm a little confused, I confess, about the 'funded by the US Government' tag line. A political ad being placed by a political campaign is required to put a 'paid by' disclaimer, normally at the end of the ad (Paid for by the committee to re-elect Joe Blow, etc). I'm assuming this is a legal notification that the preceding represents a candidate's view and should not be taken at face value, as campaigns often engage in mud slinging.
But in this case, it's being argued that it's not technically a campaign ad, or rather, it's an ad from 2024, a previous campaign. So, why the disclaimer?
'...and the ads have drawn criticism from both parties. ....' What are the other ads?
R C Belaire said...
In actual fact, there is nothing that prohibits Trump from RUNNING for a 3rd term -- if he wins, he is simply prohibited from SERVING ...
Does that mean vacancy so VP is sworn in?!
That's nice.
Is Trump trolling, or shooting himself in the foot again? ...
He could be Shooting to pace his dance moves!!!!
BTW. There is a migrant caravan making their way to the southern border, as we sit here nitpicking the definitions of the Smith-Mundt Act. Or is it the Dingell-Norwood bill?
imTay said...
"Bernie Sanders is a fraud."
I guess that is why Sanders voters were drawn to Trump, they like frauds.
Did you watch the part of the spot about Trump being agains "the warmongers"?
War is Peace.
You make a point of not getting it.
Of course Bernie is a fraud. In order to be a a successful red carpet socialist you need capitalism. He's exploited it successfully.
Dr Weevil writes: 𝘍𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘷𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥.
No one needs to pretend Iran is a benign actor. Its support for Hezbollah, Hamas and other armed groups is well documented. The rather impressive leap of logic is from “Iran sponsors violence” to “destroying the regime will vastly reduce war.”
We’ve tried the “remove the bad regime and the Middle East will become more peaceful” strategy before. Iraq, Libya and Syria provide some rather inconvenient case studies.
And six months into this war, the Trump administration still hasn’t produced the quick victory it predicted, its objectives have shifted, the conflict has expanded regionally, and the U.S. is now weighing everything from an indefinite military campaign to another ceasefire or negotiated settlement. That sounds less like a master plan for peace and more like a reminder that wars are considerably easier to start than to finish.
Being opposed to warmongering doesn’t require pretending Iran isn’t dangerous. It requires asking whether launching another war is actually a credible strategy for reducing the amount of war.
Ah, yes. "Some ethics experts" and "one ethics expert" are weighing in!
What are the ethics behind being quoted anonymously?
More cut-and-paste crap from the proven plagiarist. No need to refute IEE's statements. It's already been done, many times, and he just ignores the refutations and repeats his lies, like the paid propagandist he obviously is.
A Democratic midterm rout—similar to the one Obama experienced at the hands of Republicans could perhaps prove a gift to Trump, setting him up to finish his term as a pragmatic, centrist unifier, drawing upon his decades in business to deliver results for the country. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Dr Weevil writes: 𝘕𝘰 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘐𝘌𝘌'𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.
If it’s been “refuted many times,” then surely you can identify one of the alleged refutations and explain which factual claim it disproves. “Paid propagandist” isn’t a rebuttal; it’s what people reach for when they don’t want to engage the argument.
It’s almost as if some Trump supporters are getting a little testy about the polling, the Iran war, its mounting costs, and what all of that might mean for the midterms. Funny how enthusiasm for “winning” sometimes becomes less enthusiastic when the bill arrives.
Creepy propagandist uses typical creepy propagandist ploy. I'm supposed to keep a database of every single refutation, and then bore everyone else to tears by listing them here, at which point he will just bring up some other already-refuted talking point, and expect me to go find all the refutations of that, and so on ad nauseam, if not ad infinitum.
Of course, no one cares about polling, which is fantastically inept at best, utterly dishonest at worst. Only a fool thinks it's going to be a "rout" of Republicans, and only a liar could suggest that it would be good for Trump if it were. If only the lying fools would bugger off to Blue Sky, this would be a much better site.
Trump doing this forces dems to do it?
Dems operate in secrecy.
@Indefinitely Extended Excursion, funny you should ask. Just a couple days ago I refuted you foolish assertion that Trump’s tariffs are and have been hurting the American economy. I trie to se small woods so hat you could grasp the principles involved. (An individual like you may need to look up the word “principle.”)
And.i have also pointed out that most of the hike in by gasoline and diesel prices is due to the closure of US refineries during the Biden administration (and last year in California by Newsom). You generally ignore this data.
The US economy is doing well, despite the best efforts of Democrats to tank it, but that’s mostly true if one is working or middle class — elitists like you might not see a rise in real wages.
Warmongers by definition advocate for endless wars, not stopping them. Trump engaged in the war Iran had started, inflicted quick and brutal destruction on critical parts of their regime, for quite a while now has stopped proactive kinetic activity, and is now actively working to end it by strangling Iran’s economy and any financial means it has to keep the war going.
Warmongers don’t work to stop wars - they’re into the chaos and money flows that they generate (see Afghanistan, Iraq). Trump is not a warmonger.
I've thought about why Trump would run an ad reminding people that he said that he's going to rout the warmongers, deep staters, globalists et al?
Perhaps a deal is in the works with the Iranians. For real this time. And he's getting lots of internal/deep state pushback.
Or he wants the Iranians to believe it.
Just a guess.
Question: will this be a problem when we get the AOC propaganda hour?
@ BM: You’re conflating “the economy is still growing” with “Trump’s tariffs aren’t imposing costs.” Those aren’t the same claim. The New York Fed’s September 2026 research finds that about 26% of the 2025 tariff increase passed through to consumer prices, with additional indirect effects through U.S. producers’ imported inputs. The Minneapolis Fed estimates tariffs added roughly 0.4 percentage points to core PCE inflation through July. So there’s measurable tariff-related inflation even though the overall economy continues to grow.
The refinery argument is also much narrower than you’re presenting it. Refinery closures can raise gasoline prices, especially on the West Coast, but that doesn’t establish that they account for most of the national increase in gasoline and diesel prices.
And “the economy is doing well” doesn’t prove that tariffs aren’t hurting consumers or businesses. It simply means those costs haven’t prevented overall economic growth. Those are two very different propositions.
The particularly weak part of your argument is “𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢.” If you have data showing that refinery closures account for most of the national gasoline/diesel increase, you should identify the source and methodology. The existence of refinery closures is not itself evidence for the much larger causal claim you’re making.
And here's IEE, demanding that his opponent provide data to back up an assertion, while not even pretending to try to find any data to refute him. His usual method: make everyone else do all the work, and if they do that and prove he's wrong, ignore the refutation and repeat the refuted assertion later as if it had never been questioned.
Oil Is $95. So Why Is Diesel $6.50?
https://x.com/GasBuddyGuy/status/2103127173598990796?s=20
The recurring theme here from Dr Weevil seems to be: “I made the claim, therefore you must prove me wrong.” That’s not how evidence works.
IEE constantly makes claims, but expects everyone else to find the data to refute him. And he does routinely ignore any facts provided to refute him, because he's a hypocrite and a paid propagandist.
^^ I admire the commitment. Most people eventually run out of things to say; you’ve apparently discovered recursive arguing.
At least I'm not a paid propagandist, proven to have repeated talking points without quotation marks or attribution or link, who has never admitted having done so, or apologized for it, or done what any decent person would have done when caught red-handed like that, which is to bugger off to Blue Sky and stop damaging this site by his presence.
As with dana ward you chase him off with a rake
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.