Dossier mode
Love Me, Taxpayer
The same investigation, restaged one beat at a time. Drive it with the arrow keys, space, or autoplay. Nothing is cut from the piece — long runs are split across frames. Read the full investigation or open the Looting the American Public hub.
Love Me, Taxpayer
A 30-second hype reel for the president, set to a song called 'Love Me,' ran on Fox weeks before the midterms. The tell is in the fine print: 'Paid for by the U.S. Government.'
The federal government spent public money producing and airing a partisan ad promoting the president weeks before a midterm — admitting the funding on the ad itself — in apparent tension with the law barring appropriated funds for propaganda that aids a party or candidate.
Ad + disclaimer + 'PSA' defense = FACT. Illegality = posed (the GAO's call). The related pro-Trump ad spending was exempted from DOGE.
A pro-Trump ad tagged 'Paid for by the U.S. Government' aired on Fox weeks before the midterms.
From Sept 23, 2026 a 30-sec spot ran on Fox (Jesse Watters Primetime) and Newsmax — first flagged by CBS Miami's Jim DeFede — looping JMSN's 'Love Me' over patriotic Trump imagery and 'America will never be a communist country,' closing on 'Paid for by the U.S. Government.' Partisan content, ~6 weeks before a national election, public money — with the funding source printed on the ad.
The White House calls it a 'public service announcement' — and won't say which agency paid.
Asked to justify a government-funded ad that mostly praises the president, the White House called it a 'PSA' and declined to name the agency that paid for the content and airtime (placed via an ad agency). Then it EXPANDED the campaign rather than pull it. A real PSA has an obvious sponsoring agency and purpose; the non-answer is part of the record.
Appropriators and legal experts say it violates the ban on public funds for 'publicity or propaganda.'
Appropriations law long bars appropriated funds for 'publicity or propaganda' not authorized by Congress, and for a 'general propaganda effort designed to aid a political party or candidate.' Democratic appropriators say the ad violates that (restated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026); legal experts say it 'does not have a clear official government purpose.' Posed, not a verdict — the GAO (which enforces the rule) or a court decides. What's unusual: the ad admits its government funding on its face.
The irony: the administration's related pro-Trump ads were exempted from the DOGE cost-cutting review.
Read together: public money bought partisan self-promotion, and the 'waste-cutters' looked away.
A partisan ad for the president, government-paid, aired before an election, funding admitted on screen; a White House that calls it a 'PSA,' won't name the payer, and expands the campaign; a decades-old law against exactly this; and an administration that exempted its related pro-Trump ad spending from its own austerity review. The overall 'taxpayer-funded propaganda the cost-cutters chose not to see' is posed (legal violation unproven; DOGE exemption attaches to the DHS ads) — but every individual fact is documented.
When the state pays to be loved.
The dollar figure is small next to an oil lease or a Medicaid cut, but the principle is the starkest version of the pattern: the machinery and budget of the state turned to promoting the man who runs it, weeks before voters decide whether he keeps power. The line between a government and a regime is partly the one this ad crosses — whether public institutions serve the public or the leader. The disclaimer says the quiet part in writing, and then asks you to pay for it.
Help us fill these lines.
- OpenThe illegality is alleged, not adjudicated — cited to appropriators/experts and left to the GAO; graded SOME SMOKE, not FACT.
- OpenThe DOGE exemption is attributed to the DHS anti-immigrant ads (same pro-Trump, taxpayer-funded pattern), not pinned to this exact 'Love Me' contract; the White House's 'PSA' defense is carried in full.