DHS refers questions about the contract and funding for the Trump ads to the White House
U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityFederal executive department, in an emailed reply to Dispute Index from its media inquiry office
Asked by Dispute Index on October 6, 2026 about the contract and funding for the television ads, the Department of Homeland Security's media inquiry office replied, "We refer you to the White House," and attributed to a DHS spokesperson the line, "DHS responds to official correspondence through official channels."
“We refer you to the White House.”
Emailed statement
Read the full email
We refer you to the White House. DHS SPOX: DHS responds to official correspondence through official channels.
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
Emailed statement
Emailed reply from the Department of Homeland Security to Dispute Index on the Trump ads
We refer you to the White House. DHS SPOX: DHS responds to official correspondence through official channels.
About this source
Reply from the DHS media inquiry office to a Dispute Index request for comment, sent October 6, 2026. It refers questions to the White House and includes a one-line statement attributed to a DHS spokesperson.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Dispute Index asked the DHS Office of Public Affairs on October 6 about the contract and funding for the Trump television ads, after Trump said on October 5 that he would pay for the ads himself and through MAGA Inc.
After the quotation
The department's September 30 statement that its contracting follows applicable rules is recorded separately on this page.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is public payment for the ads. DHS answered questions about the contract and its funding by referring them to the White House and saying it responds to official correspondence through official channels, so we labeled it Explicitly stayed out. The closest competing label is Defended or excused, which fits the department's September 30 statement that its contracting follows applicable rules; this reply makes no claim about the spending itself. Evidence: the department's emailed reply to Dispute Index.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseTrump announces a switch to personal and PAC funding for the ads
“which I consider to be a positive promotion for our Great U.S.A., and paying for them with U.S.A. money. This is a rather standard thing to do but, rather than doing that, although nothing will make them happy, I have decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc.”Read statement
California Attorney General Rob Bonta says the taxpayer-funded ads are illegal and asks federal watchdogs to investigate
“It's also illegal. I call on federal watchdogs to investigate and prosecute this staggering misuse of public funding and breach of public trust.”Read statement
Vice President JD Vance says the taxpayer-funded ads are not partisan and compares them with Obama-era Affordable Care Act ads
“go back to the Obama administration with the Affordable Care Act, you have the people's government using tax dollars to advertise about what the government is doing. It's part of actually, I think, living in a constitutional republic. You have to be honest with the American people about what you're doing, about what's going on, and part of that is getting out there and telling the message. So I don't think there's anything unusual or unorthodox about it. I'm sure that some people probably don't like it, but if you look at the message of those advertisements, they're not partisan. They're not, you know, it's not like we're advocating for a particular candidate. We're trying to tell a story, I think, about how great the United States of America is.”Read statement
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- DHS refers questions about the contract and funding for the Trump ads to the White House
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4932-asked-by-dispute-index-on-october-6-2026
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "DHS refers questions about the contract and funding for the Trump ads to the White House". First published: 2026-10-06. Last updated: 2026-10-06. https://disputeindex.com/events/4932-asked-by-dispute-index-on-october-6-2026