The Trump administration says a lawsuit over its taxpayer-funded advertising campaign should be considered moot now that the midterm elections are over, arguing that a judge can no longer remedy any harm the ads might have caused.
Government lawyers want U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon to reconsider nonprofit Common Cause’s request to block a series of government ads because the midterms have already concluded, saying the “injuries” mentioned in the nonprofit’s suit never materialized before or after Election Day.
“Plaintiffs cannot establish any ‘actual and imminent’ harms related to the 2026 midterms because those elections have concluded, and their alleged post-midterm harms are plainly remote and speculative,” the Thursday filing says, adding that “the relief they seek will not redress their alleged harm.”
The dispute stems from revelations reported in September that U.S. Customs and Border Protection awarded a $20 million contract for a national media campaign to air ads with pro-Trump political messaging, including one spot that promised Americans $5,000 checks if Republicans won control of Congress.
Trending
President Donald Trump announced in October that he would pay for the ads himself and with money raised through his super PAC, MAGA Inc., though the White House later confirmed that he would not reimburse the government for earlier ad spending.
Last week, the court froze the media contract through Nov. 20 and blocked the administration from airing three “purely partisan” midterm ads on official websites and commercial spots through Nov. 13. Ahead of that decision, Rochon said she was “hard pressed” to see how the tax-funded messages could be considered anything other than a direct pitch to voters to support Republicans on Tuesday’s ballot.
Common Cause and Alabama state legislative candidate Robert Hunter allege the government used public resources to benefit Trump’s political allies, saying the ads could still hurt their political activities in future elections. The challengers said in a Monday motion that the court should grant a longer-term freeze on the broadcast spots.
Government lawyers on Thursday dismissed those concerns as speculative and irrelevant now that Election Day has passed.
The Justice Department defended White House employees’ work compiling ad videos, saying they received their regular salaries without the need for additional staff spending, and thus “no diversion of appropriated funds,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher wrote.
The filing also backed the government’s promotion of potential $5,000 checks, saying the ad informed “the general public of a new monetary proposal as well as the Administration’s views on tax policy.”
Author
