A series of U.S. government-funded television advertisements featuring President Donald Trump is drawing scrutiny from lawmakers in both parties ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The ads include political-style messaging praising Trump and his administration’s policies. At least one of the spots carried a disclosure stating that it was “Paid for by the U.S. Government,” according to reporting from multiple U.S. news organizations. The advertisements have raised questions about whether federal funds are being used for messaging that resembles campaign advertising. Federal spending laws have long restricted the use of public money for publicity or propaganda, while government employees are also subject to rules limiting certain partisan political activity. Several Democratic lawmakers have called for the advertisements to be withdrawn and questioned whether they comply with federal law. Some Republicans have also criticized the use of taxpayer money for the campaign. North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis described the advertising as inappropriate, according to reporting by the Associated Press. Other lawmakers have said the timing of the ads, weeks before the midterm elections, makes the issue especially sensitive. The White House has rejected the criticism and says the advertisements are public service announcements, not campaign ads. Officials have argued that previous administrations from both parties have used government-funded media campaigns to promote federal policies and public programs. The administration has also pointed out that Trump is not personally on the ballot in the 2026 midterm elections and that the advertisements do not explicitly tell viewers how to vote. The campaign has expanded in recent days, with additional advertisements appearing in multiple television markets. Reporting by the Associated Press said spending on the initial advertisement had reached at least $443,000 by Friday. A government watchdog group, Public Citizen, has filed complaints with the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Special Counsel, alleging that the advertisements violate federal restrictions on government-funded propaganda and political activity. Those allegations have not been adjudicated. The dispute adds another issue to the political environment ahead of November’s elections, when control of Congress will be decided. The central legal question is whether the advertisements qualify as legitimate government public-information campaigns or whether their political tone and timing cross the line into prohibited partisan promotion. That question may ultimately depend on how federal oversight bodies interpret the purpose, funding and content of the advertisements.