Rounds says the taxpayer-funded ads are not something he would have done
Mike RoundsU.S. senator from South Dakota
Rounds said the taxpayer-funded ads were not something he would have done, noting that the White House is not covered by the same guidance as Congress.
“It would not have been something that I would have done. And I know that the White House is not covered by the same guidance that we are, but it's not something that I would have done”
Reporting
Where this statement fits
Should taxpayers fund Trump's "public service" television ads?
Since late September 2026, the White House has aired television ads that feature President Trump and end with the words "Paid for by the U.S. Government". The White House calls them public service announcements and says they are not campaign ads. Democrats, some Republicans including Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and watchdog groups oppose using taxpayer money for the spots, and some allege violations of federal law. Senator Cynthia Lummis and Vice President JD Vance defend the spending. Federal records show that Customs and Border Protection awarded the ad agency LMD a $20 million contract for a media campaign on September 20, and the tracking firm AdImpact estimated at least $10.1 million in airtime spending as of October 5. On October 5, Trump said he would pay for the ads himself and with money raised for MAGA, Inc.; NBC News reported that MAGA Inc. and the White House had not answered whether taxpayers would be reimbursed for ads that had aired. The dispute is whether federal money should pay for these ads.
Source and context
Reporting
About this source
AP directly quotes Rounds saying he would not have funded the ads, while distinguishing White House guidance from the rules applying to Congress.
Before the quotation
AP reported Republican criticism of the ads on Monday, after Senate Majority Leader John Thune said they should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars.
After the quotation
Rounds said the White House is not covered by the same guidance as Congress. In AP's account he did not say the spending was unlawful.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The conduct under scrutiny is federal payment for Trump-promoting ads. Rounds says the ads are not something he would have done, which rejects the choice, while adding that the White House is not covered by the same guidance as Congress. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional; it does not fit because he states no condition under which he would accept the spending.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Donald Trump
More from this case
Read the full caseMartin criticizes ad spending and Congress's failure to enforce its limits
“In this case, the president went on spending public money in violation of the law.”Read statement
Common Cause rejects taxpayer funding for presidential promotion
Common Cause
“Taxpayer dollars belong to the American people, not to any president’s personal PR machine”Read statement
DHS refers questions about the contract and funding for the Trump ads to the White House
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
“We refer you to the White House.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Rounds says the taxpayer-funded ads are not something he would have done
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4728-rounds-said-the-taxpayer-funded-ads-were-not
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Rounds says the taxpayer-funded ads are not something he would have done". First published: 2026-10-06. Last updated: 2026-10-06. https://disputeindex.com/events/4728-rounds-said-the-taxpayer-funded-ads-were-not