The Wisconsin Democratic Party sued President Donald Trump and a group of federal agencies Friday for using federal funds on partisan campaign ads ahead of the November midterm elections.

“Weeks before a midterm election that will largely serve as a referendum on the President’s policies, the Trump Administration has turned the federal treasury into a campaign war chest,” the lawsuit charges.

“Over the past three weeks, the Administration has transferred millions of taxpayer funds to run thousands of illegal campaign ads that promote the Administration and attack the President’s opponents — all aimed at improving the chances of Republican Party candidates in the upcoming election.”

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the District of Columbia.

“To pay for this campaign, the Administration took money Congress appropriated for two very different purposes: securing the Nation’s borders, and honoring Department of Homeland Security employees, including those who died in the line of duty,” the lawsuit states.

Democracy Defenders Action and the law firm Hecker Fink filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin as well as Yee Leng Xiong, the Democratic candidate for state treasurer.

“The Trump administration has effectively looted the federal treasury, taking funds meant to protect our borders and honor fallen officers to finance their own election propaganda,” said Norm Eisen, co-founder and board member of Democracy Defenders Action. “This is an insult to every taxpayer in our country and an assault on our democracy, an attempt to tip the scales that is as desperate as it is offensive and illegal.” 

“When Wisconsinites turn on the TV, we want to watch the Brewers and Packers keep winning, not be insulted with our own tax dollars being wasted on ads to prop up a failing President,” said Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Devin Remiker.

The lawsuit says the federally funded ads that the Trump administration began running Sept. 23, featuring Trump, aired on broadcast, cable and streaming platforms, including Sunday political talk shows and college and professional football broadcasts.

“The timing, content, and context of these ads demonstrate that they have no legal non-electoral basis and were instead directed toward supporting the Republican Party and Republican candidates for partisan political offices in the upcoming election,” the lawsuit charges.

The ads ran between Sept. 23 and Sept. 29, airing at least 2,766 times, with one ad airing more than 1,300 times, the lawsuit states. It cites a New York Times article published Oct. 2 that reported the ads were produced under a $20 million contract using Homeland Security funds, as well as other reports by ABC, NBC and the Washington Post about the movement of funds to a Customs and Border Patrol account for commemorative events and the money’s subsequent use for the ads.

“The ads do none of the things for which this money was appropriated. None of the ads have any relation to ‘Line-of-Duty death memorials,’ ‘Department or agency anniversaries,’ or ‘commendation ceremonies.’ Nor do any of the ads relate to enhancing border security,” the lawsuit states.

While Trump announced Oct. 5 that his super PAC MAGA Inc. would pay for the ads, the White House said the super PAC would not reimburse more than $10 million that had been spent on the ads. In addition, the suit charges, on Oct. 6 the administration aired another taxpayer-funded ad praising the administration for its removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The ad campaign “strikes at the heart of our constitutional order,” the lawsuit declares. “The Constitution forbids the government from tipping the electoral scales. By deliberately launching these illegal ads in contemplation of, and with a view towards influencing, the 2026 federal and state mid-term elections, Defendants have interfered with the electoral process.”

In addition to Trump, the lawsuit names the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office, the Office of Management & Budget, and the heads of those agencies: Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott and OMB Director Russell Vought.

The ad campaign violates several federal laws, the suit charges. Those include a blanket ban on using federal appropriations “for publicity or propaganda purposes” in the U.S. as well as bans on “purely partisan activities” and “self-aggrandizement” by federal agencies.

The Trump ads “are ‘designed to aid’ Republican candidates and the Republican Party, and the ‘aggrandizement’ of President Trump,” the lawsuit charges.

In addition, the ads violate the federal Hatch Act, which prohibits political advocacy by federal officials, the suit charges. They also violate a federal law that blocks agencies from spending federal funds Congress hasn’t appropriated and blocks using appropriate funds “to pay a publicity expert unless the funds are specifically appropriated for that purpose,” the suit states.

Besides violating the U.S. Constitution by putting “the government’s thumb on the electoral scale,” the suit says the administration spent taxpayer funds on partisan ads without legal authority and in violation of federal laws, violated the Administrative Procedure Act and  exceeded the administration’s authority under federal laws.

“It is particularly egregious that Defendants have funded their illegal propaganda campaign by converting funds Congress appropriated to keep the citizens of this country safe and to commemorate Department of Homeland Security (‘DHS’) employees, including those who have died in the line of duty,” the lawsuit charges.

Misappropriating and misusing taxpayer funds for “partisan, self-aggrandizing, political propaganda inflicts real harm” on political candidates, the lawsuit charges, and the campaign further harms the plaintiffs because “it requires them to expend more financial and other resources to counter Defendants’ taxpayer-funded ads.”

The Department of Homeland Security obtained tens of millions of unspecified records as part of a sweeping nationwide effort to find voter fraud, according to internal DHS reports, and weighed using undercover agents to investigate voter registration efforts by nonprofit groups.

The reports from May and June by Homeland Security Investigations, a sub-agency of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, provide updates on its “election integrity” investigations. They are included in a trove of documents obtained by the pro-democracy group Democracy Forward through a records request and released Wednesday.

The HSI reports detail an expansive review of nonprofit organizations involved in voter registration. A June 1 report says 82 “NGOs” — nongovernmental organizations — had been reviewed in Pennsylvania alone. Groups in Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Ohio also came under scrutiny.

The June 1 report describes the potential for undercover operations, and refers to efforts across Homeland Security to identify organizations that “may be predatory in nature, particularly those suspected of illegal alien registration and voter encouragement.” Organizations in New Jersey and Pennsylvania remained areas of focus, the report says.

“The objective is to determine potential opportunities to leverage UC (undercover) resources, including the possible deployment of undercover agents (UCAs), to support investigative efforts in the field,” the report says.

Overall, the records offer a window into the Trump administration’s push to root out voter fraud, and especially noncitizen voting, ahead of the midterm elections. While a few months old, they suggest that finding noncitizen voters was an active focus within Homeland Security Investigations, along with identifying any organizations suspected of registering noncitizens to vote.

Noncitizen voting

Noncitizen voting is a rare occurrence, studies have consistently found. 

The Justice Department has brought a few dozen cases this year, and U.S Attorney General Todd Blanche in late September announced indictments against 10 noncitizens over allegations of unlawfully voting. But the census reports 154 million people voted in the 2024 election.

With early voting beginning across many states, Trump’s bid to assert authority over voting has largely failed. The U.S. Supreme Court blocked his plans to use the U.S. Postal Service to restrict mail ballots and the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to show proof of citizenship, stalled in Congress.

But Democrats, voting rights groups and some election officials are concerned Trump may take more extreme action in the coming weeks. They have braced for possible federal interference, including the prospect of ICE or other federal agents deploying to the polls (Homeland Security denies any plans to target polling places).

“This trove of ICE documents provides chilling new insights into the breadth and depth of the Trump-Vance administration’s efforts to pursue baseless claims of widespread election fraud and assert greater federal control over elections ahead of the 2026 midterms,” Hart Wood, senior oversight counsel at Democracy Forward, said in a statement.

Asked for comment, Homeland Security didn’t address specific questions from States Newsroom. In an unsigned statement, DHS said the agency is “laser focused” on identifying and removing noncitizens who vote. 

“HSI investigates allegations of criminal activity, including unlawful voter registration or voting by noncitizens in federal elections,” the DHS statement says. “While we do not comment on active investigations, investigative methods, or internal deliberations, HSI is actively rooting out and investigating election fraud wherever it can be found. 

“We have repeatedly demonstrated that aliens can and do vote in our elections,” the statement says. “Under President Trump, HSI is committed to restoring integrity to our election systems and ensuring that only American citizens are electing American leaders.”

At a news conference last week to announce indictments against alleged noncitizen voters in Minnesota, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said the Trump administration would never allow the votes of noncitizens to cancel out the votes of American citizens. He said that only citizens should be electing the country’s leaders.

“Our message to aliens who vote in American elections is clear: We will find you, arrest you, and you will face the consequences, including criminal charges and deportation,” Mullin said.

Nonprofits reviewed, researched 

The reports in the records obtained by Democracy Forward describe efforts by HSI to research and review an array of nonprofit groups. In some instances, HSI appeared satisfied after its examination. 

The June 1 report notes that research was completed on approximately 41 non-governmental organizations in New Jersey, with “no derogatory information” found. Research on 20 nonprofit funds linked to a Washington, D.C.-based charitable foundation also turned up nothing, the report notes.

But the report also says the Pennsylvania chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations was “flagged for further investigation.” CAIR is one of the country’s leading Muslim civil rights groups.

Ahmet Selim Tekelioglu, CAIR Pennsylvania executive director, in a statement said the organization’s civic engagement programs have expanded over the years and include voter registration efforts that seek to ensure Muslim Americans are empowered to vote and fully engaged in the civic process.

“Our voter registration program follows all applicable voter registration rules and requirements,” Tekelioglu said.

Education Minnesota, an educators union, is named in the June 1 report as one of 22 organizations that HSI was beginning to research at the time. Monica Byron, Education Minnesota’s president, said the organization learned of the investigation on Tuesday because of Democracy Forward.

Byron said the group shares Democracy Forward’s concerns about potential government surveillance of lawful voter registration activities. 

“We do not know the details of any investigation into our union, but we will not be deterred in encouraging all eligible members to exercise their right to vote in the upcoming election,” Byron said in a statement.

Tens of millions of records

The HSI reports show that Heather Honey, a DHS official who came to prominence denying President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss, obtained 48.4 million records through “independent sources of information.” Additionally, HSI drew upon some 50.6 million records from the Department of Justice.

The exact nature of the records isn’t described, but the DOJ has sued dozens of states for voter records, including sensitive personal information such as driver’s license and Social Security numbers. The department hasn’t won any of the lawsuits, but at least 16 states have voluntarily provided the data.

The Supreme Court ruled in September that states can use a powerful Homeland Security program called SAVE to help identify possible noncitizen voters after voting rights groups sued to block its use, alleging that it often relies on inaccurate data and has a track record of wrongly flagging U.S. citizens. The decision’s impact on the midterms is expected to be minimal because most states are already too close to a federal election to conduct mass purges of voters.

But the HSI reports suggest that while the legal fight over SAVE was playing out in the courts, Homeland Security was nevertheless analyzing a vast collection of records for signs of voter fraud.

HSI’s June 1 report says 26,563 records derived from ICE had been prioritized for “downstream vetting,” with a focus on Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania. 

Priority states for HSI’s review of Justice Department records included those states, as well as Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia and Texas.

The report notes that records were sent to iLab — an apparent reference to HSI’s Innovation Lab — for “secondary enrichment and identification of high-value targets.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

As they await a federal decision on a potential nationwide ban on telehealth abortions, anti-abortion activists plan to push more states to require women to visit a doctor’s office, get an ultrasound or wait before they can get abortion pills.

Under its current guidelines, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require in-person visits, ultrasounds or waiting periods for women seeking abortion pills. Nevertheless, 10 states without total abortion bans still require them.

One of those states is Florida. The state only allows abortion up to six weeks — which is before many women discover they are pregnant. Under state law, women must first get an ultrasound and then wait at least 24 hours before receiving pills or a procedure. By that time, they might be beyond the six weeks threshold.

“Floridians are already under a time clock,” said Lana’e Hernandez, a case manager for the Florida Access Network, an abortion fund that helps women pay for their abortions and travel to other states if they fall outside Florida’s narrow window.

“I see a lot of clients having to then travel out of state and take even more time off of work, adding another barrier to accessing care because of those laws combined.”

Medication abortion typically involves two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. The FDA approved the two-drug regimen in 2000 and gradually loosened restrictions as safety reviews showed a low risk of serious and life-threatening conditions. During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, the Biden administration suspended enforcement of the rule that patients had to take the medication in person, and the FDA officially removed that requirement in 2023.

But anti-abortion organizations and attorneys general have challenged these changes in ongoing federal lawsuits. And in 2025, activist groups successfully pressured the Trump administration’s FDA to review the safety data again.

On Wednesday, the FDA is expected to update the public on the progress of this review, though the agency is not expected to issue a final ruling on telehealth access to the pills. The Washington Sun recently reported that the Trump administration wants to delay any potentially controversial actions around abortion until after the midterm elections. The administration has also delayed multiple ongoing federal lawsuits until after the review.

Abortion rights advocates say reversing telehealth access to medication abortion would have a huge impact across the country. Medication abortions now account for about 65% of all abortions, and roughly 28% of all abortions are through telehealth, according to KFF, a health research group.

Critical elections

In statehouses, the midterm elections could determine whether more states will seek to restrict medication abortion.

Meanwhile, Democratic control of Congress could doom President Donald Trump’s nominee for FDA commissioner. During her confirmation hearing last month, nominee Heidi Overton would not say whether she would recommend changes to mifepristone regulation, but in the past she has expressed anti-abortion views and written that the medication is dangerous.

National anti-abortion leaders told Stateline they will not be satisfied if the FDA determines that mifepristone is safe and can be administered via telehealth.

“There are comorbidities that come with mifepristone, like ectopic pregnancies that need to be diagnosed prior to the actual provision of mifepristone, and right now under the FDA system, that’s not working,” said Bradley Kehr, vice president of legal affairs of Americans United for Life. “So states are stepping in to say that they have serious concerns, and they’re taking action for the safety of their citizens.”

Peer-reviewed studies overwhelmingly show a low risk of serious adverse events for medication abortions up to 10 weeks’ gestation, including via telehealth. But national anti-abortion groups have pointed to examples of coercion and non-peer-reviewed white papers to argue the risks are more significant than what the FDA has reported, and that ultrasounds should be required before the pills are administered.

Hernandez of the Florida Access Network said ultrasounds might be appropriate for women who have irregular periods or are at risk for an ectopic pregnancy, but that they should not be universally mandated by lawmakers. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, for patients with regular menstrual cycles and no risk factors for ectopic pregnancy, a clinical examination or ultrasound is not necessary before taking abortion pills.

“These are conversations that you should be having with your medical professional and not the government mandating you to do one thing or another,” Hernandez said. “You should be able to trust your physician to tell you whether you need an ultrasound or not to have an abortion.”

Abortion rights advocates say abortion is being singled out even as more medical care is being delivered via telehealth.

“When it comes to telehealth for abortion care specifically, a lot of those concerns, I think are coming from a place that’s really informed by abortion stigma,” said Kimya Forouzan, the principal state policy advisor of the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization that supports abortion rights. “Receiving medication abortion via telehealth is not different than any other form of telehealth care.”

Existing restrictions

In addition to Florida, Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin require ultrasounds or other in-person requirements before medication abortions. In-person requirements can include an initial in-person exam, in-person counseling, a requirement that the pills be dispensed in person or a requirement that the first dose be taken in person.

Thirteen other states (Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia) ban all abortions.

In Alaska, Missouri and Wisconsin, plaintiffs have challenged the laws on state constitutional grounds. Wyoming last year enacted a law requiring ultrasounds and a 48-hour waiting period before medication abortions. But a state district judge overturned the law in June, ruling that it violated a constitutional amendment protecting healthcare decisions, and that the state “offered no cogent evidence illustrating that a waiting period is necessary for any purpose.”

At the federal level, plaintiffs have argued that state regulations on abortion pills should not supersede the federal guidelines.

“The FDA sets the bar, and states don’t get to impede access to an FDA-approved medication,” said Kirsten Moore, director of the Expanding Medication Abortion Access (EMMA) Project, which tracks litigation related to medication abortion.

In an ongoing federal lawsuit over North Carolina’s restrictions, the plaintiffs argue that the state law conflicts with the FDA’s regulatory authority. A federal judge in 2024 ruled that the state could not ban the mailing of abortion pills, since federal rules allow it. But the judge upheld the state’s ultrasound requirement and its waiting period.

The case is pending appeal, with oral arguments scheduled for later this month at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which last year upheld medication abortion restrictions in West Virginia, which bans all abortions and explicitly telehealth abortions. In that case, plaintiff generic mifepristone manufacturer GenBioPro argued the state’s ban violated the federal regulation of abortion pills, but the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision that FDA regulations did not preempt the state’s abortion ban.

Earlier this year, Iowa also enacted a law requiring abortion-inducing medication to be prescribed in person and dispensed in a medical setting.

Beaufield Berry, executive director of the Iowa Abortion Access Fund, said that since the law went into effect, her group has gotten more calls from people asking for financial help to travel out of state. She said there are two abortion clinics left in the state, both in central Iowa, making it especially difficult on people in rural areas.

“It’s really hard for some people to be able to make an appointment to go get an ultrasound, and then if they do that, then they’re running up against that six-week clock,” Berry said.

“For an in-person visit, that’s transportation, missing work, finding childcare. And in many cases, the act of having an abortion, you may not have support,” she said. “They may be underage, and so that creates even more barriers to getting an in-person meeting.”

Different strategies

Kehr of Americans United for Life said anti-abortion state lawmakers are still figuring out their individual strategies for restricting access to abortion medication. He cited the 10th Amendment, which gives states the authority through their police power to protect their citizens, as a legal justification for mandating ultrasounds or in-clinic visits before abortion pills are dispensed.

“Other states are taking different approaches, whether it’s the ultrasound provision to check for ectopic pregnancies and things like that, or the actual consideration of abuse that’s occurring,” Kehr said.

“We’ve had multiple stories of men forcing their pregnant girlfriends or wives to take mifepristone. So looking at it from an abusive perspective or a coercive perspective, states are really looking at the gamut of options under the 10th Amendment powers.”

Model legislation developed by the National Right to Life Committee, known as the Abortion Pill Provider Liability Education (APPLE) Act, and introduced this year in New Jersey and Ohio, would require abortion-pill prescribers to inform patients about the risks of the drugs, as well as her right to sue the provider if she faces complications.

The National Right to Life Committee also supports in-person visits and mandatory ultrasounds.

“Requiring a healthcare provider to confirm, locate, and date a pregnancy before prescribing a dangerous mixture of abortion-inducing drugs is a bare-minimum safety standard, and we believe it should apply in every state,” Ingrid Duran, director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, wrote in an email.

Also looming in the background are interstate fights over so-called shield law providers prescribing medication virtually. Attorneys general in Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana filed lawsuits last week targeting shield laws and in California, Massachusetts and New York, and individual doctors prescribing abortion pills to women in states with abortion bans.

“A woman can’t possibly receive fully informed consent specific to her when the dispensing provider doesn’t even know how far along she is in her pregnancy because the risk is different depending on how far along she is,” said Dr. Christina Francis, an OB-GYN based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, who is CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which has opposed abortion pills since they were first approved in 2000.

“We believe that women deserve fully informed consent, and that necessarily involves an ultrasound when we’re talking about pregnancy.”

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.

President Donald Trump is tapping $20 million in Homeland Security funding to pay for TV ads that heavily feature him ahead of the midterm elections, Democrats said Tuesday as the promos critics call propaganda come under bipartisan attack.

The Trump administration recently moved the funds into a U.S. Customs and Border Protection budget line intended for “commemorative events” related to border security, according to federal records. Congressional Democrats said the dollars appear to be funding the ad campaign.

The ads face mounting criticism as Republicans confront an angry electorate that, according to polling, appears likely to place Democrats in control of the House and possibly the Senate. Yet the messaging reflects Trump’s strategy of centering the election on himself and telling supporters to vote as if he was on the ballot, as he urged during the GOP midterm convention.

The three ads released so far feature stylized imagery of Trump and include “Paid for by the U.S. Government” disclosures. One is nearly identical to a 2024 Trump campaign ad. Some $2 million in ads have aired on cable and broadcast stations over the past week. 

“This is the final battle,” Trump says in a voiceover in one black-and-white ad that shows him walking silently toward the camera. Another ad uses the song “Love Me” by the artist JMSN. Attorneys for the performer have sent a cease-and-desist letter to the administration demanding the ad be taken down.

Both Dems and Republicans object

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, slammed the ads as indistinguishable from Trump’s 2024 campaign ads, yet funded by taxpayers. “It’s an absolute violation of what democracy is supposed to look like. Americans sat down to watch football, not to be force fed Trump’s propaganda on their own dime,” Schumer said Monday on the Senate floor.

Some GOP senators have also split with the Trump administration over the ads. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, told reporters that while he liked the ads’ message, tax dollars shouldn’t pay for them. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas have also pushed back, among others.

“I don’t think any public official, including President Trump or (former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi) Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” Kennedy told “Face the Nation” on CBS.

$20 million materializes

On Tuesday, Sens. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Christopher Murphy of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said his department appeared to have dedicated $20 million to the ads that had been provided to Customs and Border Protection, a sub-agency of DHS, in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act last year.

House Democratic Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Henry Cuellar of Texas in their own statement also cited federal apportionment changes by the Office of Management and Budget recorded by OpenOMB, a non-governmental database that tracks apportionments. 

OpenOMB shows that on Sept. 19, $20 million was moved into a fund that pays for border security commemorative events and that previously held just $500,000.

The following day, Homeland Security awarded a $20 million contract to LMD Agency, Inc., a Maryland-based marketing firm, for a “national media campaign,” according to federal contract data.

Republican blocks resolution on ads

Sen. Maggie Hassan, a New Hampshire Democrat, sought unanimous consent in the Senate on Tuesday to pass a resolution stating that the federal government shouldn’t pay for the ads. 

“The Department of Homeland Security should be working to tackle the enormous national security threats we face like stopping fentanyl, not bankrolling a vanity project for the president,” Hassan said.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis, a Wyoming Republican, objected, saying the heart of the ads is about defending American values from communism and socialism. Lummis said if that message has Hassan concerned, it says “more about her side of the aisle than it does about” the ads. The action by Lummis halted action on the resolution.

Administration defends ads

The White House and Homeland Security didn’t deny that the government fund was being used to pay for the ads, in response to questions from States Newsroom.

The White House said in an unsigned statement that the ads — which it calls public service announcements — are educational and intended to remind Americans “to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad.” 

Homeland Security referred States Newsroom to a White House webpage that also defends the ads. The page says they aren’t campaign ads, noting that Trump isn’t on the ballot and that the messages include no call to action.

Government ethics and legal experts say that explanation misses the point.

“There’s a distinction between providing people with information about government programs and engaging in communication that merely aggrandizes government officials. And what we have here is purely aggrandizing Donald Trump,” Samuel Bagenstos, who served as general counsel to the Office of Management and Budget during the first year and a half of President Joe Biden’s administration, said in an interview.

Bagenstos, who is now a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said that if the issue was simply whether the ads violate the Hatch Act, a federal law that limits federal employees — but not the president – from engaging in partisan politics on the job, the question of the ads’ legality could be more complicated. 

But the most important legal issue with the ads, he said, isn’t the Hatch Act but whether the messages violate prohibitions on using government funds for propaganda. 

During his time in government service, which also included a stint as general counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration, Bagenstos said agencies were constantly communicating with the public, and there’s always a question of how far officials can go. But he said these kind of issues were reviewed carefully, often in ways that annoyed communications staff who wanted to put out messages immediately.

“But if something like this had crossed my desk, I would have said, ‘You can’t pay for this ad. It is clearly illegal,’” Bagenstos said, adding that the ads are the kind of thing he would have considered resigning over. “It’s that clear a violation of law and it’s really corrosive to democracy,” he said.

Similarity to franking?

Members of Congress and state-level officials regularly release slick official communications that sometimes echo campaign messaging. But that practice, known as “franking,” comes with clear restrictions, including a U.S. House prohibition on mass mailings 60 days before an election.

In sending franked mail, members of Congress are barred from sending mail that “solicits political support” for the lawmaker or any person or political party, Margaret Dylus-Yukins, senior legal counsel for ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, wrote in an email.

The Trump ads, by contrast, don’t pertain to any policymaking process or function of government, and while the White House has said the messages remind Americans to love their country, there’s no apparent connection to any federal program or service, Dylus-Yukins wrote. 

Instead, she wrote that their inflammatory language, widespread distribution and touting of Trump’s term in office, as well as their close proximity to the midterms, “all suggest that these advertisements were produced with the intent to solicit political support for President Trump’s political allies ahead of the midterm election.”

“These advertisements therefore appear to be in violation of the Hatch Act and raise serious concerns about the use of taxpayer funds to possibly sway the upcoming election’s outcome,” Dylus-Yukins wrote.

No lawsuit yet

As of Tuesday afternoon the ads didn’t appear to face a legal challenge. 

The watchdog group Democracy Forward said Monday it was launching an investigation into the ads and had filed records requests for communications regarding the ads and financial paperwork related to them.

Bagenstos suggested the courts may not be the best avenue to fight the ads. Instead, he said, Congress needs to assert itself and retaliate against inappropriate spending.

“In our separation of powers system, what our framers expected was that Congress would stand up for its power first,” Bagenstos said.

States, cities and counties filed a pair of lawsuits Monday challenging new federal rules that will allow immigrants’ use of safety net resources to be taken into account for green cards and other applications to stay in or enter the country.

The new federal policy goes into effect Friday and broadens the discretion of immigration officers reviewing applications for green cards, certain visas or admissions into the U.S., allowing officers to consider enrollment in public benefits, such as housing and food assistance, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, as something called “public charge.” 

When officers determine a person could become dependent on government benefits, that “public charge” is a ground for inadmissibility under federal law. Such non-cash benefits were previously restricted from public charge consideration under the Biden administration. 

The Trump administration rescinded that 2022 policy, arguing that it is protecting taxpayer dollars and expects immigrants to be self-sufficient.

Both lawsuits were filed against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

Many mixed-status households are expected to forgo benefits and disenroll from programs, causing U.S. citizen dependents, including children, to lose care and benefits for which they’re legally entitled to receive, experts and state officials say.

In their lawsuit, 22 states and the District of Columbia pointed to DHS estimates that say states nationwide may lose roughly $4.05 billion in annual federal transfer payments for Medicaid and CHIP programs alone. Of that nationwide total, the plaintiffs may stand to lose about $2.2 billion in reduced federal payments. 

The states include Colorado, Connecticut, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

Due to disenrollments, states nationwide could lose about $1 billion in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Of that, the plaintiff states could lose $575 million in reduced federal payments.

The states argue that the new rules contain many ambiguities and will cause the states to“ultimately be forced to fill the breach” by funding gaps out of their own budgets, leading to “staggering” costs.

Along with losing federal funding due to disenrollments from state programs, public agencies will face administrative costs, the states argue, and as households forgo enrolling in benefits, such as preventative healthcare and nutritional assistance, including school lunches, public health will suffer, leading to an increase in disease prevalence and driving up the costs of medical care, they argue.

In a separate lawsuit, a coalition of cities and counties — New York City; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Clara County, California; Seattle and King County, Washington — say the new rule is unlawful in reversing “longstanding limits on public charge determinations.” Roughly 1.3 million people, including 600,000 children, could lose care and coverage in those places, the suit argues.

New York City, which led the cities’ lawsuit, estimates it would see 6,000 fewer annual primary care visits. 

“The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades,” New York City Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani said in a news release. “New Yorkers will be afraid to see a doctor or ask for help they are legally entitled to. That fear will not stop at the families that the federal government is targeting. Families who remain fully eligible for benefits will feel a chilling effect and all New Yorkers will pay for it.”

The coalition also argues that children would be forced to withdraw from free or low-cost education programs. It notes that about 19% of Seattle residents and 26% of King County residents rely on such programs.

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

State leaders are breathing a sigh of relief that the Trump administration’s threats to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency have subsided. 

But experts say there’s still confusion about President Donald Trump’s decisions to approve or deny disaster declarations, leaving states with uncertainty about whether they can expect federal recovery funds.

“The foundation (at FEMA) seems stronger than it did six months ago, but this is an unreliable administration when it comes to the fair and equitable distribution of disaster funds,” said Juliette Kayyem, faculty chair of the Homeland Security Project at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and a former Obama administration official.

Trump has long called on states to take on a larger role in responding to disasters, and suggested early in his second term that FEMA might “go away” entirely. Kristi Noem, who served as Trump’s secretary of Homeland Security until she was fired in March, pledged at one point to “eliminate” FEMA, and slashed the agency’s spending and staffing during her tenure. 

Last month, the Senate confirmed Cameron Hamilton to serve as FEMA’s administrator, making him the first permanent agency leader during Trump’s second term. Hamilton, once a FEMA critic, had previously served as acting administrator, but was fired in May 2025 after saying he had become convinced the agency should not be eliminated. 

Experts say Hamilton’s return and Noem’s departure are signs of stability for FEMA. 

“It’s basically a return to regular order,” said Craig Fugate, who served as FEMA’s administrator under President Barack Obama. “They’re filling positions and reestablishing programs that got cut during the purge.”

State emergency managers say the leadership changes are welcome developments. 

“(Hamilton) he has the right attitude as far as supporting his employees and supporting the states,” said Lynn Budd, director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security. “I have a positive feel for that.”

Budd also serves as president of the National Emergency Management Association, a nonprofit comprising state and territorial emergency officials.

While FEMA appears to be safe from the most drastic threats, states still face uncertainty over some agency programs they have long relied on. The agency has said that states must comply with Trump’s voting and immigration policies in order to qualify for Homeland Security Grant Program funding. A coalition of states and municipalities have sued, saying they stand to lose out on millions of dollars they need to prepare for terrorist and other security threats. 

The White House press office did not respond to a Stateline interview request. 

Trump decisions

Experts say the biggest challenge for emergency managers is the lack of clarity around Trump’s disaster approvals. While FEMA has clear thresholds that determine which disasters qualify for federal aid, the president has full discretion to approve or deny those requests for help.

Trump has been far more willing to grant disaster declarations for Republican-led states, at 89%, while Democratic-led states have seen only 23% of their requests approved, a Politico analysis found in March. 

Trump overruled the recommendations of his own agencies when he rejected federal aid for four Democratic-led states in July, Politico reported. 

“The bad news is you have a very unreliable administration and a very political president,” said Kayyem, of Harvard. “When it comes to states’ expectations, we can’t know what this White House will do.”

But some emergency management veterans said the denials aren’t a clear-cut case of political retribution. Fugate, the former FEMA administrator under Obama, noted that many of the disaster requests Trump rejected were snow-related. Trump’s administration has pushed to eliminate snow assistance from FEMA disaster aid, arguing that states should not receive federal reimbursement for plowing their own roads. Many of the northern states that have experienced snow disasters are represented by Democrats. 

For other disasters, Fugate said, Trump has a higher bar for granting federal recovery funds. 

“The administration’s been very clear they’re wanting to raise thresholds, even if they haven’t formally changed the numbers,” he said. “I’ve not seen them deny catastrophic disasters, major disasters. It’s the smaller marginal disasters that are really judgment calls.”

While saying he “ain’t a big fan” of the Trump administration, Fugate said shifting the financial burden for disaster relief from the feds back to the states has been a longtime discussion among both parties. 

Still, emergency managers said the White House should provide more clarity about what the new thresholds are and give states time to prepare for a bigger role. 

“There’s really never been feedback about why a disaster was denied,” said Budd, the Wyoming official. “That’s something I would hope to see in the future, creating more clarity in what exactly are we looking at when we go through the process of trying to request a major disaster declaration.”

State money

Some states have begun preparing for a drawback of FEMA support. Tennessee lawmakers established a statewide recovery fund intended to help communities hit by disasters that don’t qualify for federal aid. While Republican Gov. Bill Lee requested $100 million to create the fund, lawmakers ultimately approved $44.2 million earlier this year. Some legislators fear that won’t go very far. 

“Cutting it by more than half shows the State can’t afford for FEMA to cut back its support, much less to stop supporting states altogether,” state Sen. Jeff Yarbro, a Democrat, told the Tennessee Lookout in a statement. “Funded at its current level, this fund can only really fill a few gaps where FEMA is too slow or too rigid.”

Budd, the president of the emergency managers’ group, said other states are considering similar funds. 

“These are the types of programs that we as states need to look at, and something that I will have conversations about with our legislators in the future,” she said. 

But as states look at making those investments, Budd called on the White House to give them more time. 

“The very hard part about saying states need to do more is that it cannot happen overnight,” she said. “It will take time for states and lawmakers to build that.”

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.