Trump's Commercial Railing Against Enemies Kept Airing After Court Block

U.S. Attorney Apologized to Court, Saying Government Has Stopped Airing Trump's Ads.

The U.S. attorney apologized to the court, saying the government had stopped airing Trump ads.

A screenshot of a Trump ad paid for by the US government.

Trump ads paid for by the U.S. government continued to air on television a day after a judge blocked the ads as likely to violate U.S. laws against government advertising or promotion.

Trump blasted his enemies in the most extensive commercial airing yet, saying he would "liberate America from these evildoers once and for all." The campaign also included ads praising Trump's record as president, another in which Trump called America "the most exceptional nation that has ever existed in human history," and commercials related to the Iran war and the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

US District Judge Jennifer Rochon issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the ads on Sunday, October 11, which took effect at 6:45 pm that evening. The order said the government must cancel the ads, "including those placements for the evening of October 11, 2026."

The Trump administration told the court on October 10 that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ad buy was set to end on October 11 and would not be renewed. Despite that, the ads continued on the night of October 11 and for part of October 12. It also came a week after Trump announced on Oct. 5 that he would begin paying for the ad money "by myself and with the money I raised for MAGA, Inc."

A US attorney issued a status report yesterday, saying the government was now complying with the order and apologizing. "As you are aware, Your Honor, the court emailed the TRO to the parties yesterday at 6:46 p.m.," U.S. Attorney Jamie MacDonald wrote in a filing. Attorney for the State emailed the TRO to agency counsel at 7:58 p.m. The agency's advisor was not informed of the government advisor's email until this morning.

The ads aired as part of a $20 million purchase order that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) placed on September 20 with LMD Agency, an advertising firm. DHS told the court that placing the ads by Oct. 11 cost $19 million.

In the Trump administration's motion to oppose the request for a temporary restraining order, one of the government's arguments was that the court order was unnecessary because the ads would not run past October 11.

DHS issued a purchase order to obtain media services from a vendor in support of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for a national media purchase. Seller currently has purchased media purchases through tomorrow, October 11, 2026, pursuant to the terms of the purchase order. DHS has directed the vendor not to make any additional media purchases since October 11, and DHS has no plans to purchase additional media under the purchase order or to use appropriated funds for similar media creation or distribution contracts that are the subject of this lawsuit. Accordingly, the alleged tortious conduct would end tomorrow, and the plaintiffs would suffer no harm, let alone irreparable harm, in the absence of an injunction.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the ads continued after the ban went into effect. The nonprofit advocacy group Common Cause and other groups that have sued the government filed a brief late in the day informing the court of the government's noncompliance.

Trump ads continued to air on programs including 60 Minutes, ABC World News Tonight and America's Funniest Home Videos. They ran nearly 400 times after the ban went into effect, including 32 times on Monday, according to AdImpact data cited in the plaintiffs' court filing.

"Plaintiffs are not currently seeking derogatory sanctions," the groups said. "But given that the ads continued on October 12 — the day after defendants insisted the ad buy was no longer effective — plaintiffs request a status conference to determine defendants' compliance."

After the state submits its status report, Rochon scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to discuss that and next steps in the action. The lawsuit is in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs are common cause. Robert Hunter, a Democratic candidate for a state House seat in Alabama; Employee Services International Union Local 32BJ; and Empire State32BJ SEIU PAC. Defendants include DHS, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Executive Office of the President.

Rochon found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the Trump administration violated the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026, which states that no funds shall be used for advertising or promotional purposes in the United States not previously authorized by Congress.

"Defendants do not dispute that the published advertisements are purely partisan and unrelated to DHS's official duties," Rochon wrote. Therefore, the Court finds that the moving plaintiffs will likely succeed in showing that the advertisements are impermissible under section 718 [of the Consolidated Appropriations Act] as ``public or promotional.''

One ad "is nearly identical to the ad used during President Trump's 2024 campaign, except for the fact that its financial disclaimer now features the United States government instead of his presidential campaign," Rochon wrote. The image depicts President Trump walking down the aisle as he delivers a series of statements about his political opponents. Among other things, he promises to "destroy the deep state," "kick out the globalists," "kick out the communists, Marxists, and fascists," "kick out the sick political class that hates our country," and "destroy the media's disinformation." official duties.

As of Oct. 8, the ad had “approximately 9,679 airplays,” Bodrochon wrote. Another estimated $6.3 million was spent on the four other government-funded ads challenged in the lawsuit. That figure is about $15.4 million as of October 8, with more spent over the next few days.

Rochon found a "clear and substantial probability" that the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act "because Congress did not provide funds for DHS to pay for the release of the challenging ads." Rochon said the restraining order was necessary despite DHS's assertion that it has "no plans" to continue running the ads.

"Defendants also have not provided reasonable assurance that OMB will not report funding from another source to continue running the same advertisement," he wrote.

The temporary restraining order will only be in effect for two weeks, but it can be converted to a preliminary injunction to keep the ads from running while the lawsuit continues. Trump, the White House, OMB and DHS face a similar lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee in federal court in the District of Columbia. A hearing on the temporary restraining order in that case is scheduled for Thursday.

Jon is a senior IT reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecommunications industry, Federal Communications Commission rules, broadband consumer affairs, litigation and government regulation of the technology industry.