NEW YORK (AP) — A judge ruled Friday that the federal government must take down three taxpayer-funded Trump administration ads that appear to have been produced for political or propaganda purposes, including one that promotes the president’s claim that every American will receive $5,000 if Republicans retain control of Congress in the upcoming election.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York sided with a coalition that included the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause and ordered the government to take down ads titled “Give Americans $5,000,” “Every Democrat Votes Against No Tax on Tips” and “The Costs of Socialism.” She refused to take down several other ads.
Read more: After backlash over taxpayer-funded ads praising Trump, he says his super PAC will foot the bill
She said the three advertisements must be removed from official government websites, including social media sites such as YouTube and Instagram. Rochon also ordered the cancellation of any plans to air or distribute ads through authorized third parties, including President Donald Trump’s flagship super PAC MAGA Inc.
Rochon was nominated to the Supreme Court by then-Democratic President Joe Biden and served as a law clerk to Trump’s sister, the late Marianne Trump Barry, a longtime federal appeals court judge.
White House spokesperson Lauren Biss said in response to the ruling: “This radical Biden-appointed judge issued a lawless order that prevents the government from sharing patriotic videos.”
Rochon ruled during a hearing in which she considered expanding a temporary restraining order issued two weeks ago when she banned a series of ads that glorified Trump and echoed his political messaging in the midterm elections.
The plaintiffs asked for at least 13 ads to be removed, but Rochon ordered only those three to be removed, at least for now. She noted that the Government Accountability Office observed that in some cases the president’s office has the authority to inform the public about its policies, defend its policies and respond to attacks on its policies.
Rochon said the plaintiffs are seeking to restrain the office in “broad and far-reaching” ways, and she finds herself concluding that the government will ultimately score legal victories on many of the ads.
The White House defended the ads as public service announcements similar to those released by past administrations to promote various policies. But the plaintiffs say the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements because they don’t try to help the public benefit from a specific government program.
After Rochon issued the order, she noted that she did so on Friday afternoon and that the government had no reason to delay their immediate removal.
The government lawyer acknowledged that he would be able to immediately notify those responsible for taking down the ads.
“Everyone is here. Everybody can hear my order. No one is in the theater,” the judge quipped, referring to the excuses offered by government lawyers for the recent order she issued over the weekend not being immediately complied with.
Rochon said if she did not ban the ads during the court proceedings, it could cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, though she noted that she could change her position and reinstate the ads or ban more after hearing more evidence in the coming weeks.
“The court can neither postpone the election nor turn back the clock,” Rochon said, after concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claims about the ads, which they would suffer if they were not removed.
“This temporary restraining order will stop the government from recklessly ignoring the law while the entire case is heard in court,” said Democracy Forward attorney Bradley Gillard. “Congress has made clear that partisan advertising cannot be funded with taxpayer dollars, and we are proud to have worked with this coalition to achieve today’s results.”
Lawyers for the coalition wrote in court filings that Congress did not allocate funds to the president’s office “to operate a public relations arm to help the president’s allies and attack his perceived ideological opponents.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Ostrich wrote in his response to the plaintiff that White House staff did not wrong in creating ads “to inform the public about his policies and to counter attacks on those policies and his administration.”
Associated Press writer Michael R. Sisak contributed to this report.
A free press is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
Support trustworthy journalism and civil dialogue.