Do you enjoy paying for political ads promoting the president? Because apparently, the Trump administration thinks you do. Three pro-Trump television ads carrying a “Paid for by the U.S. Government” disclaimer have aired in recent days, according to AdImpact. The first promoted Trump’s fight against “socialism and communism and Marxism.”A second recycled portions of his July 4 speech at Mount Rushmore. And then came the one that felt like a fragrant violation of tradition and the law because it was a carbon copy of an ad he ran while campaigning in 2024.

“This is the final battle,” it says. “With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state, expel the warmongers from our government, we will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the communists.”He’s promoting the fact that he has expelled “the warmongers” when the administration is simultaneously waging war against Iran. As former Rising host Sagar Enjeti put it on X: “Did I really just watch a US Government paid ad of Trump saying he drove warmongers out of Washington?”

That is the strange circle this administration has created: taxpayer money is being used to promote the president’s message about fighting “warmongers,” while taxpayer money is also funding the war he chose to begin and never end. Make it make sense. And there’s another important detail I mentioned earlier: this isn’t some newly produced patriotic message. The footage comes from a Trump campaign ad used during his 2024 presidential run. The difference now is that the campaign disclaimer has been replaced with: “Paid for by the U.S. Government.”Even Republicans are questioning it. Sen. John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, was asked about the ad on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday.

MARGARET BRENNAN: “This looks like a commercial about President Trump.”JOHN KENNEDY: “I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves.”The White House calls these “public service announcements,” saying they remind Americans what makes the country worth defending and arguing there is no call to action. But ethics experts have raised questions to The New York Times about whether taxpayer-funded messaging that promotes a sitting president and his political agenda crosses legal lines.

Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, told the outlet the spending could constitute an “abuse of power” and “an impeachable offense.”It may also violate the Hatch Act, passed way back in 1939, which bars government employees from making political statements in their official capacity. The Times reports that the president is exempt from the Hatch Act, but if government employees worked on the ads or their placement, that could be a direct violation of the law.

Either way, taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for the president to win over voters, promote his agenda, and make a last-ditch push to win the midterms. Lindsey Granger is a NewsNation contributor and co-host of The Hill’s commentary show “Rising.”This column is an edited transcription of her on-air commentary.