Van Abbott questions whether a $20 million DHS media campaign featuring President Donald Trump crosses the line from taxpayer-funded public information into political promotion.
by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor
While terrorists plot, hurricanes strike and traffickers exploit the border, the Department of Homeland Security is spending $20 million on television advertising that puts Donald Trump at the center of the story.
Government has a legitimate duty to inform the public. It can explain how families obtain disaster aid, warn communities about threats, guide travelers, help victims report trafficking and recruit qualified public servants.
Public information serves citizens. Political promotion serves politicians.
The White House calls them public-service announcements.
On September 19, money was moved into a U.S. Customs and Border Protection account designated for “commemorative events.” The next day, according to ABC News, CBP awarded a $20 million contract to LMD Agency, a Maryland advertising firm, for a “National Media Campaign” (public records do not fully describe the campaign). Days later, Trump-centered television advertisements began airing.
The money moved fast. The contract came faster. The ads arrived loud.
The advertisements look remarkably like campaign spots. They feature Trump prominently, employ dramatic imagery, celebrate his vision of America and echo themes from his political messaging. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, the White House calls them public-service announcements. Critics, including lawmakers and ethics experts, see something very different.
There is a simple test.
Would DHS have produced and purchased these same advertisements if someone else occupied the Oval Office?
If not, taxpayers deserve to ask why their money is being used to promote the person who occupies it.
Government can tell Americans what their government is doing; it should not tell Americans how to feel about the person doing it.
Taxpayers are not Trump's campaign fund.
And this is not an isolated incident.
The $20 million campaign follows the much larger $220 million DHS advertising operation featuring then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. That campaign included cinematic footage of Noem on horseback before Mount Rushmore and generated scrutiny over no-bid contracting, politically connected firms and the use of public money to build a cabinet secretary's public image.
Noem defended the advertising as border-security messaging. But border security does not require a cabinet secretary to become the star of a cinematic production.
The face has changed. The governing habit has not.
The pattern reaches further back.
During Trump's first term, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma used outside communications consultants whose work included raising her public profile and arranging media opportunities. The HHS inspector general later found that CMS had failed to administer the contracts in accordance with federal requirements. Democratic congressional investigators separately documented nearly $6 million in spending involving consultants who helped promote Verma's profile and personal brand.
The public should know who conceived the messages, who selected the vendors, what alternatives were considered, who approved the spending and whether the White House directed the content.
And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's taxpayer-funded “Madison Dinners,” as reported by the WSJ, generated congressional scrutiny over whether government resources were being used to cultivate political relationships and a future political network.
The faces change. The agencies change. The public pays.
Republican Sen. John Kennedy recently called the $220 million Noem advertising campaign “masterclass dumb” and made a broader point that applies here: no public official, including the president, should use public money for private advertising promoting himself.
That principle should not depend on party.
DHS should disclose every contract, invoice, media-buy schedule, production budget, audience analysis, vendor communication, approval memorandum and legal opinion associated with the Trump and Noem campaigns. The public should know who conceived the messages, who selected the vendors, what alternatives were considered, who approved the spending and whether the White House directed the content.
The question is not whether LMD Agency knows how to buy advertising. It is whether DHS had any business buying this advertising at all.
An inspector-general review should begin, but Congress cannot simply hand the matter to the agency's internal watchdog. DHS Inspector General Joseph Cuffari told Congress in March that the department had “systematically obstructed” his office's work, including by restricting access to information needed for investigations.
Congress should hold public hearings, compel testimony from DHS officials, contracting officers, vendors and relevant White House personnel, and direct the Government Accountability Office to examine the transfers, contracts and compliance with appropriations law.
Congress should follow the money, expose the paper trail and demand an answer to a basic question:
Why is an agency created to protect Americans spending millions of their dollars promoting one American?
Homeland security means stopping terrorists, guarding the border, responding to disasters and protecting the nation.
It does not mean putting the president in the spotlight and calling the spotlight public service.
About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on
life in America on Substack.
More Editorial Viewpoints
TAGGED: DHS taxpayer-funded advertising, $20 million CBP media campaign, Trump DHS advertising campaign, government spending and political promotion, taxpayer-funded political advertising
What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here:
Sentinel submission guideline.
We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.
