DHS promise to stop Trump propaganda ads isn’t enough, challengers argue

The Trump administration’s pledge that it has “no plans” to keep running taxpayer-funded propaganda ads for President Donald Trump isn’t good enough for advocates seeking to halt the ads.

“The administration’s misuse of government funds has effectively turned [the Department of Homeland Security] into a PAC for the President’s party,” they argued.

A coalition of pro-democracy organizations and a Democratic state senate candidate made the point in a Sunday court filing, part of a lawsuit they filed against the ads last week. They were responding to a late-Saturday filing by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which argued the ads shouldn’t be blocked because DHS’ agreement with the media company sourcing them to news networks ends Sunday.

But other than vague promises, plaintiffs argue there’s nothing — besides the court-mandated pause they’re fighting for — stopping the Trump administration from buying more ads once its current contract is up.

“DHS already has a mechanism to buy more ads in the future,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote. “Customs and Border Protection made the $20 million obligation under a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with LMD that is still in effect.”

While DHS told the court it directed the ad agency not to run ads past the Oct. 11 deadline, that promise is not legally binding. More ads will likely run during widely-viewed Sunday evening programming in just a few hours, plaintiffs noted.

“Defendants cannot moot a case by claiming, as DHS does here, that the conduct has stopped and they have no plan to repeat it,” plaintiffs concluded.

And plaintiffs said it’s still unclear how the remaining money will be dealt with, without an entity holding DHS to account if it decides not to follow through.

“Although Defendants say they will de-obligate the additional million dollars, they have not said how or when,” plaintiffs said. “That is far from an enforceable assurance.”

In response to DHS’ claims that plaintiffs lacked standing, the plaintiffs pointed out that the organizations and state senate candidate all contribute significant funds to Democratic endorsements and campaigns. And they’re doing it without the advantage of the executive branch.

Meanwhile, Trump has thrust himself into midterm voting by encouraging his supporters to vote as if he himself were up for election, which he is not.

“Only Trump has access to the government’s coffers to aid his political efforts,” plaintiffs argued.