Ex-DHS Official Slams Donald Trump's Alleged Misuse of Border Cash Describing Scheme as Unprecedented

Former DHS chief of staff Miles Taylor and Republican lawmakers have questioned the use of border-security funds for television advertisements featuring President Donald Trump ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The Trump administration used U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) funds to finance the advertisements, according to a federal official and Republican Senator Susan Collins. The first of three reported advertisements began airing on 23 September 2026, ahead of the 3 November midterm elections.

The White House has described the broadcasts as educational public-service announcements.

Critics, including lawmakers from both parties, say the content appears closer to political promotion than routine border messaging. The available reporting does not establish that the spending was unlawful.

How the CBP Advertising Funding Was Allocated

The funding details emerged after federal records showed that the Office of Management and Budget moved $20 million (£15.1 million) into a CBP account on 19 September.

The account was designated for 'OBBBA commemorative events', referring to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, President Trump's 2025 tax and spending law. The account had previously held $500,000 (£377,000), according to reporting by The Journal Record.

The following day, CBP awarded a $20 million (£15.1 million) contract to Maryland-based LMD Agency, Inc. for a 'National Media Campaign'. The contract record confirms the award, but does not itself establish that LMD Agency produced the Trump advertisements.

The adverts were marked 'Paid for by the US Government' and aired during high-profile television programming, including college and National Football League games, according to Roll Call.

AdImpact estimated that at least $1.7 million (£1.28 million) had been spent on television airtime for the campaign. More recent reporting put the figure at at least $2.5 million (£1.89 million). That figure refers to advertising placements, not the full contract value.

One advertisement features Trump discussing the need to 'defeat communism' while JMSN's song 'Love Me' plays in the background. Representatives for the musician reportedly sent the White House a cease-and-desist letter over the song's use.

That dispute has not been independently established through the letter itself in the available reporting.

Another advertisement shows Trump walking through a corridor and urging viewers to join his 'final battle' to 'demolish the deep state' and 'expel the warmongers from our government.' Its similarities to a 2024 Trump campaign advertisement have added to the criticism.

CBP routinely produces public messaging about border enforcement. Such campaigns can discourage migration or urge people in the country illegally to leave. The latest advertisements, however, include broader patriotic and political themes.

The White House defended the campaign.

'These public service announcements are about reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad,' a White House spokesperson told NBC News. 'The ad is educational and unapologetically patriotic.'

DHS said it 'follows all applicable rules for contracting decisions and keeps all decision makers informed.' The department added that 'all contracting decisions are made in accordance with applicable law.'

Republican Lawmakers Question Trump Ads

Criticism has also come from Republican lawmakers.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he approved of the message in one advertisement but questioned whether taxpayers should have funded it.

'It's a great message. I like the message,' Thune said. 'But it shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars.'

Susan Collins, the Republican senator from Maine and chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said her panel was not involved in the transfer. She argued that the administration had used an account created through the reconciliation law rather than going through the regular appropriations process.

'That's why the administration went around the appropriations process and used an account that was part of the reconciliation bill,' Collins said.

Her statement describes a political and procedural objection, not a legal finding. Whether the advertisements were an authorised use of the CBP account depends on the specific statutory language and the decisions made by federal officials.

Federal law can restrict the use of appropriated money for publicity or propaganda. The Hatch Act may also be relevant to some government employees, although the president and vice president are excluded from its coverage. The available reports do not establish that any law was violated.

For Taylor, who served as DHS chief of staff during Trump's first administration, the alleged use of border funding is more serious than an unusual communications strategy.

Writing on his Substack, Taylor called the alleged diversion 'theft'. He also described it as 'totally unprecedented and head-spinningly corrupt', presenting both phrases as his opinion rather than established legal conclusions.

'Border money is supposed to be spent on the border, not on presidential self-promotion, and certainly not weeks before an election,' Taylor wrote.

Taylor said one advertisement had aired more than 2,300 times on local stations by Sunday. That figure should be treated as his estimate unless supported by the underlying advertising data, as other reporting has cited more than 2,000 airings.

The White House and DHS maintain that the campaign complied with applicable rules. Congressional lawmakers and oversight bodies may now examine how the money was allocated, what the contract covered and whether the advertisements served a legitimate government purpose.

That inquiry, rather than the political language surrounding the campaign, will determine whether the spending was merely controversial or something more serious.