An ad reportedly aired on Newsmax in Chicago and Fox News in LA.
Overall assessment: Mostly Reliable
The video accurately reports on a controversial pro-Trump ad, including its airing, funding statement, and the strong reactions and legal concerns raised by politicians regarding its potential violations of federal law and ethics. While the video accurately conveys the opinions and statements of politicians regarding the ad's legality and ethics, the definitive legal status of the ad as a felony or Hatch Act violation is presented as a possibility rather than a confirmed ruling.
Claims (11)
An ad reportedly aired on Newsmax in Chicago and Fox News in LA.
True — Multiple sources, citing ad-tracking firm AdImpact, confirm that a pro-Trump ad aired on Newsmax in Chicago and Fox News in Los Angeles. This information is consistently reported across various news outlets.
The ad states it was paid for by the US government.
True — Several news reports indicate that the ad in question includes a tag or statement explicitly saying "Paid for by the U.S. Government." This detail is central to the controversy surrounding the ad.
Since the 1950s, there has been a ban on using federal funds for publicity or propaganda, including ads that are purely partisan or designed to aid a political party or candidates.
True — Sources confirm that since the 1950s, annual appropriations legislation has routinely included a ban on using federal funds for "publicity or propaganda purposes." This ban is cited in the context of the controversy surrounding the ad.
Senator Tom Tillis stated the ad was inappropriate.
True — Multiple news outlets report that Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) called the ad "inappropriate" and compared it to actions by former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The claim accurately reflects his stated opinion.
- https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6110237-trump-government-ad-criticism/
- https://time.com/article/2026/09/28/trump-ads-democrats-republicans-bipartisan-criticism-taxpayer-funds/
- https://www.clickorlando.com/news/politics/2026/09/25/pro-trump-tv-ad-paid-for-by-us-government-continues-airing-with-higher-spend/
Representative Jamie Raskin stated that the ad could amount to felony criminal theft and conversion of government property for political campaign purposes.
True — Multiple news outlets and a direct post from Rep. Jamie Raskin's official X (formerly Twitter) account confirm that he stated the ad could be "felony criminal theft and conversion of government property for political campaign purposes," citing 18 U.S.C. § 1641.
The ad could amount to felony criminal theft and conversion of government property for political campaign purposes.
Mostly True — The Department of Justice's Criminal Resource Manuals discuss 18 U.S.C. § 641, which prohibits the selling, conveying, or disposing of government property without authority, defining it as a form of knowing conversion. While these sources confirm the existence of laws against conversion and theft of government property, they do not provide a legal verdict on the specific ad in question, only that such actions *could* fall under these statutes.
Representative Jamie Raskin stated that the ad is a Hatch Act violation for any government employees who worked on it or used government resources to make it.
True — Representative Jamie Raskin explicitly stated on X (formerly Twitter) and in reports from news outlets that the ad is a "Hatch Act violation for any government employees who worked on it or used government resources to make it."
The ad is a Hatch Act violation for any government employees who worked on it or used government resources to make it.
Mostly True — Official government sources, including the Department of Labor and the Office of Special Counsel, confirm that the Hatch Act limits political activities of federal employees and prohibits the use of government resources for partisan political activities. While these sources outline the provisions of the Hatch Act, they do not provide a definitive ruling on whether the specific ad in question constitutes a violation, only that such actions would be prohibited.
Representative Jamie Raskin stated that the ad is blatantly unethical under numerous federal ethics provisions proscribing the use of government resources for political campaigns.
True — Representative Jamie Raskin explicitly stated on X (formerly Twitter) that the ad is "blatantly unethical under numerous federal ethics provisions proscribing the use of government resources for political campaigns." This statement is also reported by Yahoo News, attributing the quote directly to Raskin.
The ad is blatantly unethical under numerous federal ethics provisions proscribing the use of government resources for political campaigns.
True — Official sources from the House Committee on Ethics and the U.S. Department of the Interior confirm that federal ethics provisions and the Hatch Act prohibit the use of government resources for campaign or political purposes. The House Committee on Ethics explicitly states that rules require House funds and official House resources to be used for official purposes and preclude their use for campaign or political purposes.
The Hatch Act bans government employees from using their positions or official resources for political activities.
True — The Hatch Act, a federal law, restricts the political activities of federal employees. Official sources from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and the Department of the Interior confirm that the Act limits partisan political activity and prohibits federal employees from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election, which includes using official resources for political activities.