A Judge Ordered Three Trump Administration Ads Pulled Before the Midterms. Days Later, Social Security and the IRS Emailed Praise for Trump
A federal judge in Manhattan found three taxpayer-funded White House videos likely broke Congress' ban on government 'publicity or propaganda' and ordered them taken down through the election. Then Social Security and IRS emails signed by the same official credited President Trump by name, and ethics experts raised the Hatch Act. Here's what the court record shows, what the law says, and why each side reads it so differently.
By Daniel Whitaker, National Affairs
Published · 10 min read
The Overview
The facts, straight
What the judge ordered. Four days before the midterms, a federal judge in Manhattan told the government to stop spreading three taxpayer-funded videos made for the White House. U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ruled from the bench on Friday, Oct. 30, then entered a three-page written order the same afternoon in Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security. It says:
- The government is "enjoined from disseminating advertisements entitled '$5,000 to Americans,' 'Every Democrat Voted Against No Tax on Tips,' and 'Cost of Socialism.'"
- It must "immediately remove" them "from official government websites, including social media sites such as YouTube, Instagram, or other similar sites."
- It must cancel any placements "through authorized third parties, including airing of the advertisements by MAGA Inc.," the president's super PAC, and serve the super PAC with the order.
- The order "shall remain in effect until 14 days from today, subject to an extension by this Court."
That last line matters today. Fourteen days from Oct. 30 runs to about Nov. 13, so the order covers all of Election Day and a little more. What ends tonight is the reason it was sought: the plaintiffs wanted the videos off government channels before people voted.
The order is a temporary restraining order. Rochon found the plaintiffs "have demonstrated a clear and substantial likelihood of success" on their claim that the government acted beyond its legal authority "with respect to at least three of the challenged advertisements." That is a prediction about how the case is likely to come out, not a final ruling. The plaintiffs had asked her to pull more than a dozen online ads; she found only three likely crossed the line, Courthouse News reported.
The law behind it. Since 1951, in some form, Congress has written a one-sentence rule into its spending laws. Today it's Section 718 of the appropriations act for general government. As Rochon quoted it in an Oct. 12 opinion earlier in the same case: "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used directly or indirectly, including by private contractor, for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress." Because the law doesn't define propaganda, courts lean on the Government Accountability Office, Congress' auditor. GAO bars three kinds of agency messaging: covert messages that hide the government as the source, "self-aggrandizement" or puffery about an agency or official, and "purely partisan" material that is "completely devoid of any connection with official functions" (GAO B-320482). As far back as 1962, GAO said public money may never be used "in a general propaganda effort designed to aid a political party or candidates thereof."
How the case got here. Common Cause, the union SEIU 32BJ and its PAC, and Alabama state House candidate Robert Hunter sued this fall over TV ads paid for with Homeland Security money. On Oct. 11 Rochon blocked those ads, and her Oct. 12 opinion noted that the government did "not contest that the at-issue advertisements are purely partisan and unconnected to DHS's official functions." That first order has been extended, with both sides' consent, to Nov. 20. The plaintiffs then said the White House kept similar videos up on its own channels, paid for by the Executive Office of the President, and that MAGA Inc. aired some of them, according to Common Cause. That led to the Oct. 30 order.
What the judge said about the three ads. No transcript of the bench ruling is on the public docket yet, so these quotes come from Courthouse News, which was in the courtroom. In the 33-second "$5,000 to Americans," President Trump says from the Oval Office: "If the Democrats win, you will have an economic depression. If the Republicans win, you will each have $5,000 in your pocket." (We looked at that promise in The $5,000 Question.) Rochon said she was "hard pressed" to see it as anything but a partisan appeal: "Voters are being directly asked to support one political party over another in an upcoming election." She called the tips video, which shows Democratic lawmakers, "a classic partisan advertisement," and said of "Cost of Socialism," aimed at candidates tied to the Democratic Socialists of America, "There is even a call to action, urging voters to steer clear of candidates aligned with the agenda."
What happened next, per the docket. The same day, the government asked Rochon to drop the MAGA Inc. requirement, writing that "the named Defendants cannot control MAGA, Inc." and that the super PAC isn't a party to the case (Doc. 102). We found no ruling on that request in the public record. On Oct. 31 the plaintiffs told the court the videos stayed on the White House YouTube page until after noon that day and were then "unlisted," meaning still reachable by direct link, and that at least one remained on the White House Instagram (Doc. 103). Later that day the government certified that it had emailed the order to MAGA Inc., had no placements for the videos, and had "removed the three videos from public viewing on all White House official websites and social media" (Doc. 104). Briefing on a longer-lasting preliminary injunction is under way and, under a Nov. 2 request, would run into next week (Doc. 106).
The order reaches only those three videos. The White House kept posting about the same policies, like this Nov. 2 post on the tips tax break:
Post: The White House (@WhiteHouse) on X, Nov. 2, 2026.
The emails. The same week, two agencies run by one man sent mass emails crediting the president by name. Frank Bisignano is both Social Security commissioner and the IRS's chief executive. An IRS email "dated Thursday," Oct. 29, said: "Hardworking Americans like you are keeping more of what they earn because of President Trump's historic tax cuts," The Washington Post reported. It also said the Working Families Tax Cuts "ushered in a new era of tax relief and prevented the largest tax increase in American history from taking effect," and noted that the IRS "does not generally send e-mails to taxpayers," Newsweek and The Hill reported. An email to people with online Social Security accounts, sent Oct. 30 and 31, said: "Under President Donald J. Trump, the Social Security Administration (SSA) is transforming into a model of excellence, one that meets and exceeds customer expectations for fast, accurate, and secure service." Neither email asks anyone to vote a certain way, based on the excerpts published so far.
The rule the emails are measured against. The Hatch Act says a federal employee may not "use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election" (5 U.S.C. § 7323). The Office of Special Counsel, which enforces it, says it covers every civilian executive-branch employee except the president and vice president, and that penalties run from reprimand to removal and a civil fine (OSC). Ethics experts quoted by The New York Times say the emails may cross that line; no complaint, investigation or finding about the emails has been made public.
So: rule of law, or a judge and critics policing ordinary government speech? Here are both cases.
What the Left Says
The progressive and Democratic case
Democrats and watchdog groups say this is taxpayer money spent to help one party win, right up to the vote. "We fought to turn off these ads because our tax dollars should serve the American people, not the president's ego or political war chest," said Common Cause CEO Virginia Kase Solomón, calling it "an unlawful attempt to use public funds for partisan propaganda right in the middle of an election" (Common Cause). "Did they really think no one would notice that they were spending taxpayer money for campaign ads?" said Brendan Ballou of the Public Integrity Project, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers.
They point to the record so far. In the first round, the government didn't contest that the DHS ads were purely partisan. Rochon wrote that one of them, "Final Battle," was "almost identical" to a 2024 Trump campaign ad except that "its funding disclaimer now identifies the United States government rather than his presidential campaign" (Doc. 42). And they say the White House was slow to comply: by the plaintiffs' account the videos stayed up for most of a day after the order, and even then were only unlisted. The Campaign Legal Center has also filed a Hatch Act complaint over the ads, and Common Cause filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, according to Common Cause. Those complaints are allegations; neither agency has ruled.
On the emails, critics see the same pattern in places most Americans can't avoid. Social Security and the IRS hold everyone's records, and more than 100 million people have online Social Security accounts, the Post reported. Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor, told the Times the emails seemed to work as "propaganda" rather than public-service announcements. Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who was a White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, told the Times: "They're doing it just before the election to persuade people that President Trump is doing a good job." Both quotes were relayed by Newsweek and The Hill. (For what each party leaves out on Social Security itself, see Social Security's Clock.)
Where Reality Likely Sits
Radio Purple's analysis
Shared ground. Both sides agree on the rule itself: tax money can explain and defend what an administration does, but it can't be spent to tell people how to vote. That rule binds Democrats and Republicans alike. GAO has applied the same test to the Obama administration's health-care ads (B-320482) and to the first Trump administration's health-care messaging (B-329199), and the Hatch Act covers every executive-branch employee except the president and vice president, whoever is in office.
What the record settles:
- Three videos were ordered off government channels, and the government says they're off. The order covers "$5,000 to Americans," "Every Democrat Voted Against No Tax on Tips" and "Cost of Socialism." The government certified removal on Oct. 31. Everything else the White House posts is outside this order.
- The order doesn't end today. It runs 14 days from Oct. 30, to about Nov. 13, unless the judge extends it. The earlier order on the DHS TV ads runs to Nov. 20. But both were sought to keep the videos away from voters before they voted, and that window closes when polls close tonight.
- It's a temporary ruling. Rochon found a "clear and substantial likelihood" the three videos were unlawful. A final answer comes later, after briefing on a preliminary injunction that both sides have asked to stretch into next week.
- The MAGA Inc. question is open. The government says it can't control the super PAC. We found no ruling on that in the public docket.
What the record doesn't settle:
- Whether the emails broke the Hatch Act. The test is whether an official used his position to try to affect an election. The emails credit Trump by name and arrived days before the vote. They also describe actual laws and don't mention a party, a candidate or the election, based on the text published so far. Experts disagree with the administration about which side of the line that falls on, and the Office of Special Counsel hasn't said anything public.
- Who decides, and when. Hatch Act questions go to the Office of Special Counsel, which hasn't announced any review of the emails. Nothing about them will be settled before the votes are counted.
For voters, the practical part: the court order is about government money, not campaigns. Candidates, parties and super PACs can still run whatever ads they pay for themselves. If you're still in line today, nothing in either fight changes how or where you vote. For what to expect after polls close, see why some races take days to call, and for the federal monitors at polling places today, see our Election Day explainer.
What the Right Says
The conservative and Republican case
The White House calls the order an overreach by an unelected judge. "This Biden-appointed activist judge issued a lawless order to stop the administration from sharing patriotic videos," spokesperson Lauren Bis said, according to the AP and Newsweek. In court, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher argued the videos lawfully communicated the president's functions and policies, Courthouse News reported, and the administration has compared them to public-service spots run by past administrations, the AP reported.
Supporters also point to the limits in the record. Rochon declined to pull most of the online ads the plaintiffs challenged. The government argued in writing that a court can't make it control MAGA Inc., a private group that isn't in the case, and told the court it had no placements with the super PAC at all (Docs. 102 and 104). And the ruling is a temporary order on likely success, issued under deadline pressure, not a final judgment that anyone broke the law.
On the emails, the administration's defenders say agencies are supposed to tell the public about new laws, and these emails describe real tax breaks and service changes. GAO itself warns against going too far: barring "all materials that have some political content or express support for an Administration's policies would significantly curtail the recognized and legitimate exercise of an agency's authority to inform the public of its policies, to justify its policies, and to rebut attacks on its policies" (GAO B-329199). The emails, as published, name no candidate and don't mention voting. And no official body has found a Hatch Act violation.
Sources & Citations
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (via CourtListener RECAP), “Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-08882 (JLR), Order (Doc. 101)”, October 30, 2026.
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (via CourtListener RECAP), “Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security, Opinion and Order (Doc. 42)”, October 12, 2026.
- U.S. Attorney's Office, S.D.N.Y. (via CourtListener RECAP), “Government letter asking the court to amend the TRO as to MAGA Inc. (Doc. 102)”, October 30, 2026.
- Campaign Legal Center Action, Democracy Forward, Public Integrity Project Action (via CourtListener RECAP), “Plaintiffs' letter on compliance with the expanded TRO (Doc. 103)”, October 31, 2026.
- U.S. Attorney's Office, S.D.N.Y. (via CourtListener RECAP), “Government certification of compliance with the TRO (Doc. 104)”, October 31, 2026.
- U.S. Attorney's Office, S.D.N.Y. (via CourtListener RECAP), “Letter requesting extension of preliminary-injunction briefing (Doc. 106)”, November 2, 2026.
- U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Department of Health and Human Services--Use of Appropriated Funds for Technical Assistance and Television Advertisements (B-320482)”, October 19, 2010.
- U.S. Government Accountability Office, “U.S. Department of Health and Human Services--Application of Anti-Lobbying and Publicity or Propaganda Provisions (B-329199)”, January 1, 2018.
- U.S. Office of Special Counsel, “Federal Employee Hatch Act Information”, January 1, 2026.
- U.S. Office of Special Counsel, “5 U.S.C. § 7323, Political activity authorized; prohibitions”, January 1, 2026.
- Common Cause, “VICTORY! Coalition Secures Second Court Order Blocking Trump and MAGA Inc. from Promoting Taxpayer-Funded Propaganda Ads”, October 30, 2026.
- Courthouse News Service, “Judge blocks 3 MAGA ads over concerns they breached taxpayer-funded propaganda law”, October 30, 2026.
- Associated Press, “Federal judge bans 3 Trump administration ads”, October 30, 2026.
- The Washington Post, “Judge blocks Trump administration from airing 3 taxpayer-funded ads”, October 31, 2026.
- Newsweek, “Biden-appointed judge blocks Trump ads days before midterms”, October 31, 2026.
- The Washington Post, “Days before election, IRS blasts out praise for Trump's 'historic tax cuts'”, November 2, 2026.
- Newsweek, “Social Security email praising Trump days before midterm under scrutiny”, November 2, 2026.
- The Hill, “Experts say Social Security and IRS emails praising Donald Trump violated the Hatch Act”, November 2, 2026.
- X (@WhiteHouse), “White House post on X (No Tax on Tips)”, November 2, 2026.
Positions above are attributed to the public statements and published reporting cited here. Quotations are taken from these sources; Radio Purple does not publish unattributed or invented quotes. See an error? Request a correction.
