In the weeks before a consequential midterm election, a rare crack appeared within the Republican coalition: Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, a lawyer by training and a loyalist by practice, publicly questioned whether the White House had crossed a legal line by broadcasting campaign-era political advertisements using taxpayer funds. The ads — some recycled directly from Trump's 2024 campaign — aired on major networks under the disclaimer 'Paid for by the US government,' prompting legal scholars to invoke the Hatch Act, a federal statute designed to keep partisan ambition from feeding at the
GOP Senator Kennedy Calls Trump's Taxpayer-Funded Ads 'Probably Illegal'
there probably is a rule you can't spend public money to promote yourself
Mark
So Kennedy is a Republican criticizing a Republican president's use of government money for ads. That's unusual. What's driving him to speak up?
Mimi
He's a lawyer, and he seems genuinely troubled by the legal exposure. He'd already called out Kristi Noem for the same thing in March—$220 million in government ads to boost her image. When the same pattern emerged with Trump, he couldn't stay silent without looking like a hypocrite.
Luke
But here's the thing—Kennedy doesn't actually do anything about it. He says it's "probably illegal" and "there ought to be a rule," but he doesn't call for an investigation or say the ads should be pulled. He's performing concern without taking a stand.
Mark
Is there actually a legal violation here, or is Kennedy just uncomfortable?
Mimi
The Hatch Act is real. It bars federal employees from partisan campaign work. If government workers produced these ads or used government resources, that's potentially a felony. Jamie Raskin, a Democratic legal scholar, has made that argument explicitly.
Luke
But we don't know who made the ads or what resources were used. The reporting tells us the ads exist and that Kennedy thinks they're probably illegal, but it doesn't confirm an actual violation. That's important to hold separate.
Mark
What about the second ad—the one that was originally a campaign ad?
Mimi
That's the clearer case. It was made for Trump's 2024 campaign, posted on Truth Social as a fundraising tool, shown at the Republican convention, and now it's being broadcast with taxpayer money before the midterms. The same ad, same rhetoric, different funding source.
Luke
Right, but the reporting doesn't tell us whether anyone has formally challenged this or whether there's an investigation. It's Kennedy's opinion that it's probably illegal, not a confirmed legal determination.
Mark
So why does Kennedy stop short of actually pushing back harder?
Mimi
He's a Republican. He's in the same party as Trump. There's a limit to how far he'll go, even when he thinks something is wrong. He makes his point and moves on.
Luke
And we don't know what happens next. Will he introduce legislation? Will he file a complaint? The story ends with Brennan's quip about watching if he introduces a rule about naming buildings after living politicians. That's not a resolution.
The Pulse
- Taxpayer-funded ads featuring Trump's campaign rhetoric began airing on major broadcast and cable networks just weeks before midterm elections, blurring the line between governance and electioneering.
- The second ad was not new — it had been created for Trump's 2024 campaign, posted on Truth Social as a fundraising tool, and displayed at the Republican National Convention before being rebroadcast on the public dime.
- Senator Kennedy, a fellow Republican, broke ranks on live television, calling the spending 'probably illegal' and drawing a direct parallel to Kristi Noem's $220 million self-promotional ad campaign, which he had previously condemned as 'masterclass dumb.'
- Legal scholars and Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin argue that government employees involved in producing or distributing the ads may have committed felony violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan campaign activity using federal resources.
- Despite his pointed language, Kennedy stopped short of calling for an investigation or enforcement action, leaving his dissent hovering in the uncomfortable space between conscience and consequence.
In the weeks before a consequential midterm election, a rare crack appeared within the Republican coalition: Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, a lawyer by training and a loyalist by practice, publicly questioned whether the White House had crossed a legal line by broadcasting campaign-era political advertisements using taxpayer funds. The ads — some recycled directly from Trump's 2024 campaign — aired on major networks under the disclaimer 'Paid for by the US government,' prompting legal scholars to invoke the Hatch Act, a federal statute designed to keep partisan ambition from feeding at the public trough. Kennedy's measured but pointed dissent — 'there probably is a rule' — captured something older than any single administration: the perennial tension between the power of office and the limits democracy places upon it.
On a Sunday morning in late September, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana sat across from CBS News host Margaret Brennan and said something unusual for a Republican in the Trump era: he suggested his own party's president might be breaking the law.
The issue was a pair of political advertisements running on major broadcast and cable networks in the weeks before November's midterm elections. Both carried the disclaimer 'Paid for by the US government.' One featured warm narration describing Trump as 'the toughest, most resilient person I ever met.' The other was starker — Trump in black and white, staring into the camera while audio from a campaign rally played, filled with rhetoric about demolishing the deep state and expelling globalists and communists.
Brennan reminded Kennedy that he had recently criticized Kristi Noem for spending $220 million in government funds on self-promotional ads. Did he see a parallel? Kennedy didn't flinch on Noem — 'masterclass dumb,' he said — but grew more careful when the subject turned to Trump. 'I don't think any public official should spend public money on private ads for themselves,' he said, before adding the phrase that hung in the air: 'there probably is a rule.'
That rule, legal scholars argue, is the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from engaging in partisan campaign activities using federal resources. Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin went further, suggesting those involved in producing the ads may have committed a felony.
The second ad sharpened the concern considerably. It was not produced for governance — it had been created for Trump's 2024 election campaign, posted on Truth Social as a fundraising tool, and displayed on giant screens at the Republican National Convention before his nomination acceptance speech, where it was identified as material provided by the Republican National Committee. Now, the same ad was being broadcast on the public dime, weeks before an election that would determine control of Congress.
Kennedy acknowledged the legal jeopardy but stopped short of calling for any investigation. As the interview closed, he offered one more quiet provocation: no politician, he said, should have a public building named after him while still alive — a rule already on the books in Louisiana. Brennan's response was measured and dry. 'We'll watch, Senator, if you introduce that.'
Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican and lawyer with degrees from the University of Virginia and Oxford, sat down with CBS News host Margaret Brennan on Sunday to discuss something that put him at odds with his party's president: the White House's decision to spend taxpayer money on political advertisements.
The ads in question were running on major broadcast and cable networks in the weeks before November's midterm elections. One was a 30-second spot that the White House labeled a "public service announcement." It featured President Trump prominently, with a voice describing him as "the toughest, most resilient person I ever met." At the bottom of the screen, text read: "Paid for by the US government." Another ad, which aired during a college football game on Fox and again during Fox News Sunday, showed Trump in black and white, staring into the camera while audio from one of his campaign rallies played—rhetoric about demolishing the deep state, expelling warmongers, and driving out globalists and communists. That ad, too, carried the disclaimer that it was funded by American taxpayers.
Brennan reminded Kennedy that just months earlier, in March, he had publicly criticized Kristi Noem, then Trump's homeland security secretary, for spending $220 million in government funds on a series of advertisements designed to boost her own public image. She asked whether Kennedy saw a parallel. Kennedy did not hesitate. "What she did was masterclass dumb," he said. But when pressed on the Trump ads, Kennedy's position became more complicated. "I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves," he said. Then he added: "Now, the White House sees it differently. But I think there ought to be a rule that you can't—well, there probably is a rule—you can't spend public money to promote yourself."
That last phrase—"there probably is a rule"—was significant. Kennedy appeared to be acknowledging what legal scholars, including Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin, had already argued: that the Hatch Act, a federal law prohibiting government workers from engaging in partisan campaign activities, may have been violated. If government employees worked on these ads or used government resources to produce them, Raskin suggested, they could have committed a felony.
The second ad raised particular questions about its origins. According to Medium Buying, a company that purchases airtime for Republican candidates, the Trump administration used taxpayer funds to broadcast it. But the ad itself was not new. It had been created for Trump's 2024 election campaign. Trump had posted it on his Truth Social account in 2023 and 2024, using it as a fundraising tool to solicit donations from supporters. The rhetoric in the ad—about the "final battle" and casting out communists and fascists—had been woven into Trump's standard campaign speech as early as July 2023 and repeated dozens of times at rallies. The ad had even been displayed on giant screens at the 2024 Republican National Convention before Trump's nomination acceptance speech, where it was identified as material "provided by the Republican National Committee."
Now, that same ad was being broadcast on the public dime, weeks before midterm elections that would determine control of Congress. Kennedy's acknowledgment that such spending was "probably" illegal suggested he understood the legal jeopardy, even as he stopped short of calling for an investigation or enforcement action. At the end of the interview, he volunteered another concern: that no politician should have a public building named after him while still alive—a rule, he noted, that already exists in Louisiana. Brennan's response was dry: "Well, we'll watch, Senator, if you introduce that."
Notable Quotes
What she did was masterclass dumb. She spent $220 million on commercials about her, and I called her out on it.— Senator John Kennedy, on Kristi Noem's government-funded ads
I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves.— Senator John Kennedy, on the Trump administration's taxpayer-funded advertisements
Want the full story?
Read the original at The Guardian ↗