Update, Oct. 13, 2026: The judge, Jennifer L. Rochon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued a written opinion on Oct. 12 in Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-08882. The order is a temporary restraining order combined with a stay under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it took effect at 6:45 p.m. ET on Sunday, Oct. 11. According to Democracy Docket’s summary of the opinion, the judge found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on claims that the spending exceeds the purposes Congress authorized and violates restrictions on publicity and propaganda. As quoted by the Associated Press, the order says the defendants “shall not enter into, renew, or expand” agreements for the challenged ads. Democracy Docket’s case page lists a hearing on Oct. 14 on whether DHS violated the order. The text below was written before the opinion was released.
A federal judge in Manhattan on Sunday ordered the Department of Homeland Security to stop using its money on a roughly $20 million taxpayer-funded television ad buy that includes spots depicting President Donald Trump. The order is a temporary restraining order. It lasts 14 days unless the court extends it, and the judge said a full opinion explaining her reasons will follow shortly.
DHS told the court the buy would end Sunday and that about $19 million of the $20 million had already been bought through Oct. 11. The order’s most immediate reported effect is therefore on the Sunday-night placements and any new buys. By its terms it also stays all future payments under the purchase order and the Office of Management and Budget’s $20 million apportionment, which on its face would include any unpaid final invoice; whether that invoice had been paid before the order has not been reported.
The order came from U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the Southern District of New York in Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security. The order says it is effective at 6:45 p.m. Eastern time on Sunday, Oct. 11, 2026.
What the order does and does not do
The order combines a temporary restraining order with a stay under the Administrative Procedure Act. According to the order’s text, it does the following:
- Stays the purchase order of on or about Sept. 20 between Customs and Border Protection and the ad agency Lepugh, Inc., doing business as LMD Agency, including all future payments under it.
- Stays the Office of Management and Budget’s apportionment of $20 million for the ads covered by that purchase order.
- Bars the use, disbursement or transfer of DHS funds to develop, create, distribute, place or air the ads funded under that purchase order, which the order says include five named ads: The Country He Loves, Celebrating the Enduring Spirit, Final Battle, To the Great Proud People of Iran, and Maduro.
- Requires the defendants to cancel any slot or placement for those ads, including placements for Sunday night.
- Bars new, renewed or expanded agreements for the ads, and binds contractors, including LMD.
- Requires a status report within 24 hours confirming compliance.
- Provides that the plaintiffs need not post a bond, in the court’s discretion.
The order has limits. It restricts DHS funds and that one purchase order. It does not reach all government advertising, and it does not address ads paid for with other money, such as from MAGA Inc., the super PAC that Trump said on Oct. 5 would pay for ads going forward. The order does not mention MAGA Inc.
The court found that the plaintiffs who asked for the order are likely to succeed on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, and that the balance of equities and the public interest favor them. It also found that the motion is not moot and that there is standing to proceed. The reasoning behind those findings was deferred to the forthcoming opinion, so the order has not yet said which legal ground it rests on. It does not rule that the ads are propaganda.
Who sued and who asked for the order
The suit was filed Oct. 7 by Common Cause, Robert Hunter, SEIU Local 32BJ and Empire State 32BJ SEIU PAC. The Justice Department’s brief in the Manhattan case describes Hunter as the Democratic Party’s nominee for Alabama House District 28. The plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward; Campaign Legal Center Action and Public Integrity Project Action are also counsel, according to Campaign Legal Center’s own page. The defendants named in the case caption are DHS and its secretary, Markwayne Mullin; the Office of Management and Budget and its director, Russell Vought; the Executive Office of the President; and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Mullin, Vought and Wiles are each sued in an official capacity.
As the Justice Department describes the Common Cause complaint, it pleads nine counts: six under the Administrative Procedure Act, one that the executive acted beyond its legal authority, and two equal-protection counts. Campaign Legal Center, which describes itself as co-counsel, says on its page that the suit alleges violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment.
Only three of the four plaintiffs brought the motion for the restraining order: Hunter and the two union entities. The Justice Department’s brief in the Manhattan case says the plaintiffs acknowledged that Common Cause was not claiming irreparable harm of its own. According to that brief, the plaintiffs argued that the ads give a competitive advantage to candidates aligned with the president.
What the government told the court
The government opposed the request, arguing mainly that it was unnecessary because the challenged conduct would end Sunday. In its brief in the Manhattan case, the Justice Department also argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing, that the Southern District of New York would be an improper venue if only Hunter, an Alabama resident, had standing, that the requested relief was too broad, and that a bond should be required. Law Dork reported that the Justice Department did not defend the legality of the ads on the merits in that court.
A DHS official, Holly C. Mehringer, who performs the duties of the department’s chief financial officer, signed a declaration under penalty of perjury that the government filed. It says the vendor bought media through Sunday, Oct. 11, at an approximate cost of $19 million. DHS told the vendor not to make additional buys after that date, and the declaration says the department has no plans to renew the order or to use DHS funds on similar contracts for the media at issue. Any residual money is to be de-obligated after final invoices are paid, and the final invoice is for services already performed. The declaration adds that DHS will continue periodically to use funds for recruitment media.
The declaration also says the purchase order funded only the airing of preexisting media, not the creation of the ads. It does not say who made them.
What the ads were and how they were funded
According to the declaration, CBP issued a $20 million purchase order on or about Sept. 20 to LMD Agency under a previously awarded blanket agreement. The money came from CBP funds in a 2025 tax and spending law, which the declaration describes as available for, among other things, commemorating efforts and events related to border security. The Justice Department’s brief in the Manhattan case, citing declarations, says the additional $20 million came from CBP money already apportioned for fiscal year 2027 and was approved by OMB on Sept. 19.
The declaration says the buys covered morning and evening cable news on Fox, CNN, MS NOW and Newsmax; Sunday shows on CBS, ABC and NBC; and football broadcasts on CBS, ABC, ESPN and other channels.
The ads began airing on Sept. 23, according to the DNC’s complaint in the Washington case, and each ends with an on-screen notice, “Paid for by the U.S. Government.” The complaint, whose descriptions are allegations and not findings, says the Love Me ad, also called The Country He Loves, has Trump narrating about defeating communism, with on-screen text reading “Largest tax cuts in history,” the song Love Me by JMSN and a clip of UFC chief executive Dana White. It says Final Battle carries a Trump voiceover and is nearly identical to a January 2024 Trump campaign ad apart from the disclosure. It says the Maduro ad uses what it describes as footage of Nicolas Maduro’s capture and a clip of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
In the Justice Department’s brief in the Manhattan case, the department describes the spots as “certain media depicting the President of the United States.”
The DHS declaration and the Justice Department’s filings describe the money as CBP funds available for, among other things, commemorating border-security efforts; the department’s brief in the Manhattan case gives the budget request’s label as commemorative events. Some news reports used other labels for the underlying pool: the Associated Press described a $175 million immigration-enforcement package, and ABC News described a $6.2 billion border-security fund. Spending estimates were also reported over time. AdImpact estimated at least $1.7 million by Sept. 30, as ABC reported; about $5.5 million by Oct. 2, as the New York Times reported; and more than $12 million by Oct. 7, as the AP reported. The DHS declaration puts the total through Sunday at about $19 million.
The New York Times reported on Oct. 2, citing anonymous sources, in an account carried by the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, that Trump personally told Vought to find the money. According to that account, OMB declined comment, DHS said it follows all applicable rules for contracting decisions, and White House and OMB lawyers reportedly said using DHS funds would be legal.
The White House position
CBS and the AP reported that the administration has described the ads as public service announcements, and that a White House official said last month the president is not on the ballot and the ads have no call to action. In the New York Times account, White House communications director Steven Cheung said presidential public service announcements are nothing new. The AP reported that the White House compared the ads to Biden-era COVID-19 vaccination public service announcements. Reuters reported that the White House said Trump’s super PAC would not repay taxpayers for ads that already ran, and that MAGA Inc. would fund ads going forward.
The legal question
The central statute in the Washington case is a restriction in the fiscal 2026 appropriations law (section 718 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026). As quoted in the DNC’s Washington complaint and the Justice Department’s Washington brief, it says no part of any appropriation may be used directly or indirectly, including by a private contractor, for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress. The DNC’s Washington complaint invokes that ban. The Manhattan order has not said which ground it rests on, and the Justice Department’s description of the Manhattan complaint lists Administrative Procedure Act, beyond-authority and equal-protection counts.
The Justice Department’s Washington brief notes that the statute does not define publicity or propaganda. The DNC’s complaint cites the Government Accountability Office’s Principles of Federal Appropriations Law as identifying three categories of prohibited activity: self-aggrandizement, covert propaganda and purely partisan materials. According to the complaint, purely partisan material is designed to aid a political party or candidate and is typically devoid of any connection with official functions.
The Justice Department’s Washington brief cites the same GAO treatise for a different emphasis. It says the executive branch has a legitimate right to explain and defend its policies, and that restricting all materials with political content would curtail informing the public. The DNC complaint also invokes the Purpose Statute and the Antideficiency Act. No court has issued a final ruling on whether the ads violate the statute.
GAO’s past findings give some context. Its 2005 decision B-304228, on an Education Department video news release, found violations of the publicity-or-propaganda ban where the agency’s role was hidden from viewers, and its 1987 decision B-229069, on the State Department’s public diplomacy office, found covert propaganda. These ads carry an on-screen government disclaimer, and the DNC relies on GAO’s self-aggrandizement and purely partisan categories. GAO has not been reported to have called these ads lawful or unlawful.
Campaign Legal Center said on its page that it filed a Hatch Act complaint with the Office of Special Counsel. The Hatch Act covers government employees, not the president.
The separate DNC lawsuit in Washington
A second case is pending in federal court in Washington, D.C. The DNC sued on Oct. 7 in DNC v. Trump, naming Trump in his official capacity, the White House Office, OMB and DHS. On Oct. 9 it asked for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction and a stay. As of early Monday, Oct. 12, no ruling had been reported in that case, and the Manhattan order does not decide it.
The DNC alleges that Trump personally directed the spending and that the ads kept airing with the government disclaimer after his Oct. 5 statement that MAGA Inc. would pay. In its Washington brief, the Justice Department argued, among other points, that there was no final agency action by OMB and that the president is not an agency. It also told that court that, after Sunday, none of the challenged ads will air using federal funds.
What lawmakers and others said
Reactions from lawmakers crossed party lines, as reported by the AP and CBS News. Sen. John Thune said the ads should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars; Newsweek reported that he said he liked the message but not the taxpayer funding. Sen. John Kennedy said on Face the Nation that no public official, including the president, should spend public money on ads for themselves. Senate Democrats wrote a letter comparing the ads to government propaganda in North Korea.
Democracy Forward said it was pleased the court acted swiftly. The plaintiffs call the ads unlawful political propaganda. DNC chair Ken Martin, whose party is a plaintiff in the Washington case, called the ads a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans in November, the AP reported. Legal experts told the AP the ads differ from typical public service announcements because they do not point viewers to a specific program or benefit.
What is not known
- The judge’s reasoning and the legal ground for the order, which the order says will come in a full opinion.
- Whether any ad was actually pulled because of the order, given that DHS had already said the buy would end Sunday; none had been reported as of early Monday, Oct. 12.
- Whether the final invoice DHS said it would pay had already been paid before the order.
- Whether the government will appeal; no appeal had been reported as of early Monday, Oct. 12.
- How the Washington case will be decided.
- Whether any of the money will be recovered.
- Whether MAGA Inc. will run the ads.
What happens next
The defendants owe the court a status report within 24 hours of the order, which puts it at about Monday evening. The conference that had been set for Oct. 13 was adjourned and is to be rescheduled to discuss next steps. The full opinion is expected shortly. In Washington, the DNC’s motion is pending; Law Dork reported a reply due Tuesday, Oct. 13, and a hearing at 10 a.m. Thursday, Oct. 15. That hearing date comes from a single outlet, and no court document confirming it had been found as of early Monday. Unless the court extends it, the Manhattan restraining order runs out around Oct. 25.