Trump Accused of Using 'Taxpayers' Dollars' on 'Personal Business' as He Launches 'Media Bias Tracker'

A newly launched White House initiative to police 'biased media,' announced by the Trump administration, is already drawing sharp criticism from watchdogs and opposition lawmakers who argue it repurposes public funds for partisan attacks. Many point to precedent: courts previously found that Trump misused charitable and business entities for personal gain.

The move has revived debate over where public and private lines blur, and whether U.S. taxpayers are effectively underwriting political messaging.

White House Debuts 'Media Bias Tracker'

On Nov. 28, 2025, the White House launched a new webpage labelled as a 'media bias tracker,' intended to catalogue and criticise media outlets and individual reporters accused of producing biased or misleading content. The site uses stark language: 'Misleading. Biased. Exposed.' to highlight what the administration claims are distortions of its policies or statements. Among the outlets identified in its first 'Offender Hall of Shame' are major U.S. news organisations such as The Washington Post, CBS News, CNN, and MSNBC.

According to the site's initial content, it aims to document what the administration identifies as repeated inaccurate reporting by listing 'offences' such as 'bias,' 'malpractice,' or 'left-wing lunacy.'

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt (via the official White House X account) described the site as a way to 'expose fake news,' encouraging the public to 'get the FACTS' by browsing the 'worst offenders' list.

Questions Over Funding: Are Taxpayers Paying?

Critics contend that, given the site resides on the official White House domain and is maintained by the administration, it is likely funded at least in part through taxpayer dollars, which raises concerns about a misuse of public resources for partisan ends.

No explicit accounting of additional costs for the 'Media Bias Tracker' has been published. Transparency advocates note that under prior law changes, federal agencies were required to publish spending data such as apportionments, but in March 2025, the administration removed a public spending–tracking website maintained by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

A recent court ruling forced OMB to restore that data after watchdog pressure, emphasising long-standing concern over opaque spending. As of late, no public record confirms whether the new media-tracking site draws only on pre-existing White House infrastructure or represents a new expenditure. The lack of transparency leaves the question of 'taxpayer subsidy' unanswered, but critics argue that the structural conditions make it plausible.

Trump's Misuse of Funds

Sceptics of the tracker's legitimacy draw on prior legal findings involving Trump. In 2019, a New York State court found that the Donald J. Trump Foundation, long controlled by Trump, had misused funds for personal, business, and political purposes.

Specifically, judges ruled Trump had breached his fiduciary duty by using the foundation's money to settle legal obligations for his private businesses, purchase a large self-portrait, and even stage what was ostensibly a charitable giveaway at a political rally. As part of that ruling, Trump was ordered to pay £1.51 million ($2 million), redistributed across eight legitimate charitable organisations, and to dissolve the foundation.

The case remains a rare instance in which a sitting U.S. president was formally judged to have misused funds intended for charitable or public benefit. More recently, in September 2022, the New York Attorney General's Office filed a civil lawsuit against Trump and the Trump Organization, alleging years of financial fraud, falsely inflating net worth to secure loans, insurance, and tax benefits.

That lawsuit seeks £189 million ($250 million) in penalties and aims to remove Trump and his adult children from leadership roles in New York real estate ventures. Together, these legal precedents fuel scepticism among watchdogs and critics: If Trump has in the past diverted non-public funds into personal or political use, might a government-hosted media-tracker represent a new form of state-backed, partisan communication?