A federal judge in New York ordered a 14-day suspension of a television advertising campaign in support of President Donald Trump, funded with resources from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), citing strong grounds to challenge the legality of using those public funds.
The decision was made on Sunday by Jennifer L. Rochon, a judge of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, through a four-page temporary restraining order.
This Monday, the magistrate published a 40-page explanation detailing the reasons for her intervention.
The measure requires the Government to cancel the pending advertising spaces for the questioned announcements, suspends the purchase order used for their dissemination, and prevents new payments under that contract while the restriction remains in effect.
It also prohibits using, transferring, or disbursing funds allocated to DHS to produce, distribute, or broadcast those advertisements, as well as establishing, renewing, or extending agreements intended for their dissemination.
The order took effect at 6:45 p.m. on Sunday, October 11, New York time, and has an initial duration of 14 days, although the judge may extend it.
Rochon also demanded that the administration immediately notify the contracting company of the decision and submit a compliance report within the following 24 hours.
The prohibition specifically refers to the advertisements identified in the litigation and does not constitute a general suspension of advertising by the U.S. government.
The court document indicates that the Office of Management and Budget of the White House (OMB) had allocated 20 million dollars to fund the campaign through resources linked to the DHS and the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency.
The purchase order, dated around September 20, was signed with Lepugh Inc., which operates as LMD Agency, to acquire ad space and distribute the advertisements. The contract reviewed by the court pertains to the advertising placement, not to the original production of the videos.
According to a statement submitted by DHS itself to the court, the company had contracted advertising spaces until October 11 for an approximate cost of 19 million dollars.
However, that amount corresponds to the approximate value of advertising purchases, not necessarily to money already paid. The agency acknowledged that it expected to receive the final invoice for the services rendered later on.
The campaign began to spread at the end of September and included ads highlighting achievements attributed to the Trump administration, messages about its political opponents, and others related to international issues.
One of the ads, titled «Final Battle», featured images and statements used during Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, although in this version it identified the U.S. government as responsible for its funding.
Other announcements addressed foreign policy towards Iran and Venezuela. The five materials identified in the file were accompanied by a note indicating that they had been paid for by the Government of the United States.
The lawsuit was filed by a coalition that includes the governmental watchdog organization Common Cause, the SEIU Local 32BJ union, its political action committee Empire State 32BJ SEIU PAC, and Robert Hunter, a Democratic candidate for the Alabama House of Representatives.
The plaintiffs assert that the administration used funds approved by Congress for purposes other than those authorized and that the advertisements constitute political propaganda financed with taxpayer money, just ahead of the November legislative elections.
In its ruling published this Monday, Rochon provisionally concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a clear and substantial likelihood of prevailing in their claims regarding the misuse of budget allocations.
The judge specifically examined the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal provision that requires public funds to be used solely for purposes authorized by Congress, as outlined in Article 1301 of Title 31 of the United States Code, as well as the budgetary restrictions on advertising and propaganda.
The judge noted that the resources used came from a budget allocated for activities related to border security, including commemorative events and recognitions tied to that mission.
According to his analysis, Congress had not authorized those funds to be used to finance the questioned advertising campaign.
Rochon also believed that allowing the continuation of the advertisements could cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs during the election period, which warranted immediate judicial intervention.
For its part, the administration maintained during the process that the campaign was coming to an end and that it had instructed the company not to contract any new spaces after October 11. It also questioned whether the plaintiffs had standing to file the complaint and argued that the litigation had lost its purpose.
The magistrate rejected those arguments at this stage. She explained that there were still contractual obligations, potential outstanding payments, and uncertainties regarding the continuity of the broadcasts, thus the announcement that the campaign was concluding did not render judicial intervention unnecessary.
The decision does not constitute a final ruling on the legality of the entire campaign, but rather a precautionary measure while the process identified as Common Cause et al. v. Department of Homeland Security et al., case file 1:26-cv-08882, continues.
The practical scope of the order will depend on its enforcement and the upcoming decisions of the court. The judicial suspension alone does not confirm that all announcements effectively ceased to be broadcast from the moment it came into effect.
The controversy over campaign financing had started before the judicial intervention. On October 5, Trump announced that he would use resources raised by MAGA Inc., a political action committee that supports him, to fund future advertisements.
However, according to reported by Associated Press, the president did not commit to reimbursing the public funds used up to that point. The announced change in funding did not necessarily imply a refund of previous expenses.
For its part, the Department of Justice argued during the proceedings that the campaign was already scheduled to end on Sunday, October 11, and therefore considered a judicial intervention unnecessary.
According to explained CNN in its coverage of the case, the DHS had instructed the contracting company not to acquire new advertising space after that date and stated that there were no plans to continue the purchases.
The administration also defended the materials as public service announcements and argued before the court that they were not directed against specific electoral candidates or political parties.
The controversy took on a new dimension this Monday, when The Washington Post reported that two of the advertisements continued to air after the deadline set by the judge.
According to the newspaper, the administration claimed that it had not received the court order in time to cancel those broadcasts. The plaintiffs requested a hearing to examine compliance with the measure.
Related videos:
Filed under: