A U.S. federal judge has ordered the immediate removal of three taxpayer-funded advertisements promoting President Donald Trump’s political agenda, following a lawsuit alleging the commercials violated federal restrictions on partisan electioneering.
A U.S. federal judge has ordered the immediate removal of three taxpayer-funded advertisements promoting President Donald Trump’s political agenda, ruling that the commercials must be taken down from official government websites and social media platforms while a legal challenge proceeds.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued the preliminary order on Friday, directing the federal government to remove three controversial advertisements titled “$5,000 to Americans,” “Every Democrat Voted Against No Tax on Tips,” and “Cost of Socialism.”
One of the advertisements promoted Trump’s claim that every American would receive $5,000 if Republicans maintained control of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections. The ruling also prohibits planned distribution or broadcasting of the three commercials through authorized third parties, including the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc. super PAC.
The legal challenge was brought by a coalition of watchdog organizations, including the nonpartisan group Common Cause, which argued that the advertisements improperly used public funds for partisan political messaging. The plaintiffs initially sought the removal of at least 13 commercials, claiming that taxpayer money should not be spent promoting political interests or influencing election outcomes.
However, Judge Rochon limited the preliminary restriction to three advertisements, declining to immediately prohibit the remaining 10 commercials while the case continues.
In explaining her decision, Rochon acknowledged that government officials have legitimate authority to communicate public policies, defend administrative decisions and respond to criticism. She cited guidance from the Government Accountability Office recognizing that certain government communications are permissible when they serve legitimate public information purposes.
READ MORE ARTICLES:
- U.S. Judge Orders Removal of Three Taxpayer-Funded Trump Ads
- Trump Reschedules Iowa, Kansas Rallies Ahead of Crucial Midterm Elections
- Robert E. Hall and Michael Woodford Win Nobel Prize in Economics
- US Supreme Court Gives FCC More Time in Political Ad-Rate Dispute
- Xi-Trump Summit Leaves U.S.-China Tensions Unresolved
Nevertheless, the judge determined that allowing the three advertisements to remain available during the litigation could cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs. She emphasized that the restrictions could be reconsidered as additional evidence and legal arguments emerge in the coming weeks.
The ruling drew a strong response from the White House, which criticized the decision and questioned the judge’s impartiality.
White House spokesperson Lauren Bis described Rochon as a “Biden-appointed activist judge” and called the order unlawful, arguing that the administration should be allowed to distribute videos intended to communicate its policies and respond to political criticism.
Rochon was nominated to the federal judiciary by former President Joe Biden. Before her appointment, she also served as a law clerk to the late Maryanne Trump Barry, the sister of President Donald Trump and a longtime federal appeals court judge.
Meanwhile, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher defended the administration’s position, arguing that White House personnel were permitted to compile advertisements to inform the public about presidential policies and counter attacks against the administration.
The plaintiffs welcomed the court’s decision, describing it as an important step toward protecting public funds from partisan political use.
Bradley Girard, an attorney with Democracy Forward, said the temporary restraining order would prevent what he described as the administration’s disregard for federal law while the court examines the broader case.
He also maintained that Congress had established clear restrictions against using taxpayer money to finance partisan political advertisements.
Following the ruling, Rochon indicated that the federal government was expected to act immediately to remove the three commercials. A government attorney assured the court that relevant officials could be notified promptly to implement the order.
However, government lawyers also asked the judge to exclude MAGA Inc. from the restrictions, arguing that the super PAC was not formally named as a party in the lawsuit and operated independently of the government defendants.
Rochon has not yet issued a decision on that request. The lawsuits also do not name Trump personally as a defendant.
The case is expected to continue as the court examines whether additional government-funded advertisements violate federal restrictions on partisan electioneering. Rochon also left open the possibility of reversing her preliminary decision, restoring the three advertisements or imposing restrictions on additional commercials after reviewing further evidence.
Sources: Associated Press and Reuters. This story was reported from Orlando.
