A pledge made under pressure

Donald Trump announced the shift on Monday in a social media post, saying the pro-Trump television advertisements glorifying him would be paid for by his political action committee rather than by US taxpayers. He said the cost would be met with money he had raised for Maga Inc, and he called the commercials "a positive promotion for our Great U.S.A." and airing them "a rather standard thing to do".

The White House, which had fiercely defended using taxpayer money on spots promoting the president, said on Monday night that Maga Inc would pay for such ads going forward. Trump gave no details, however, on reimbursing taxpayers for the spots that had already aired, or on how his political organization would finance such advertising.

The bill and the war chest

The spots cost at least $1.5m in federal funds. AdImpact, which tracks media spending, put the bill at a minimum of $1.4m by the end of September, a figure that could run far higher depending on whether television networks classified the material as a political ad. The super pac now picking up the cost holds considerable resources:

• •Maga Inc, Trump's political war chest, had amassed more than $400m by the end of July.
• •Trump has begun drawing on it to boost Republican candidates across the United States ahead of the midterm elections.

Criticism from both parties

The reversal came after leaders of both parties criticized using taxpayer funds for the commercials. California senator Adam Schiff demanded the White House show proof it had stopped funding the ads with taxpayer dollars and that Trump pay the money back, adding in a social media post that US taxpayers should not be left unpaid like contractors.

Last week, two congressional Democrats asked federal watchdogs to investigate whether the administration illegally used taxpayer money for the spots, which began airing in late September. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House judiciary committee, and California congressman George Whitesides sent the request to the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Special Counsel, describing the commercials in their letter as desperate pre-election propaganda.

Legal experts said the ads could breach federal statutes, among them a ban on spending appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda and limits on the partisan political activity of government employees.

What the spots showed

All three advertisements ended with the same line: "Paid for by the US government."

• •The first paired clips of Trump discussing defeating communism with onscreen text promoting "largest tax cuts in history", "reigniting American manufacturing" and a call to "defend law and order and police".
• •A second spot began running later the same week, showing scenic Mount Rushmore footage with quotes and clips from Trump's Fourth of July weekend speech there marking the country's 250th anniversary.
• •A third, more recent ad was virtually identical to a 2024 Trump reelection campaign spot, showing him walking down a hallway as his voice warned of a "final battle" against "globalists" and "warmongers".

One question stayed open: the White House did not answer how it or Trump could show his political money was actually spent on the ads, and the review now rests with the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Special Counsel, where Raskin and Whitesides sent their request last week.