Ahead of the November 3rd midterm elections, President Trump aired three commercials trumpeting American exceptionalism, but they drew bipartisan criticism. Concerns about misuse of taxpayer dollars and the messaging used raise questions about the Trump administration’s adherence to democratic competition. The administration described the ads as public service announcements intended to promote patriotism and highlight its priorities. The bold “Paid for by the U.S. Government” at the end of the ads raised eyebrows, especially as did one ad found to be highly reminiscent of one used in Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. All three advertisements repeat themes about communism, socialism, and America entering its “golden age.” This has prompted questions about whether using public funds for ads that resemble campaign material violates federal law. Where is the line drawn between government communication and campaign messaging?
The controversy extends beyond the possible use of government resources for campaign messaging and shows how democratic erosion can occur through the gradual obfuscation of institutional boundaries. This question explores how democracy is more than elections and formal institutions. When government resources are used for political messaging, the standards of democratic competition can begin to deteriorate even when formal democratic institutions remain in place. Schumpeter argues that democracy depends on a competitive struggle for political leadership (Schumpeter 1943). Robert Dahl similarly emphasizes the importance of political competition, alternative sources of information, and the citizens’ ability to express their preferences (Dahl 1972). For democracy to function, citizens must be allowed to make their own choices between competing political leaders. When government institutions appear to promote partisan political messaging, equity of political competition is questioned.
Ozan Varol’s concept of stealth authoritarianism helps explain this issue (Varol 2015). Varol argues that democratic erosion can happen through legal mechanisms that already exist within democratic systems. Because these actions can appear to be legitimate uses of government power, it can be difficult to identify when these democratic institutions are being misused. Therefore, democratic erosion does not necessarily present as eliminating elections or abolishing constitutionally supported institutions. Instead, institutions can remain in place while their functions and powers undermine democratic competition. What makes this case particularly relevant to Varol’s argument is that the controversy does not involve the elimination of a democratic institution. Instead, it involves a dispute over how existing government power is being used. The controversy over these recently published commercials illustrates this ambiguity. Government advertising is not inherently undemocratic. Historically, administrations have regularly used public funds to publicize public health information and other matters of public interest. Under scrutiny, the White House has pointed to examples of taxpayer-funded advertisements under previous administrations as evidence that the commercials were not unprecedented communication. FactCheck.org notes that the government specifically cited similar advertising from the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations.
Reuters reported that one of the commercials is nearly identical to a Trump campaign advertisement broadcast in 2024. This finding has sparked discussion about whether political leaders should exercise restraint when using the government’s power and resources. Levitsky and Ziblatt describe this democratic characteristic as forbearance, or the expectation that political actors will exercise restraint in their use of institutional powers (Levitsky, Steven & Ziblatt 2018). While government advertising is a legitimate function of the government, using public money for an advertisement that resembles a previous campaign message raises questions about where the line between governing and campaigning should be drawn. The issue is not just whether the administration has formal authority to create advertisements, but whether it is using that power in a way that respects the informal rules of democratic competition.The White House argues that because President Trump is not on the 2026 midterms ballot, the advertisements should be considered public service announcements rather than campaign material. However, whether these ads are legally allowed is separate from whether they weaken democratic norms. At the same time, some ethics experts argue that these commercials could violate laws on using public funds for campaigning, however their legality remains subject to review. The critics’ concern is not necessarily that these advertisements will determine the election’s outcome. Rather, this predicament demonstrates how difficult it can be to distinguish the legitimate exercise of government authority from the political use of federal institutions. This is exactly the problem of ambiguity Varol identifies with stealth authoritarianism. When an action operates through an existing democratic system, its political consequences can be difficult to separate from its formally legitimate purpose.
The controversy surrounding these three advertisements from the Trump administration shows that maintaining democracy requires more than just having elections. It also depends on fair political competition and on political actors exercising restraint and using public power responsibly. The government has the authority to communicate with the public. Still, when those messages start to look closely like campaign material, the question becomes whether the administration is showing the restraint expected in a democracy. The controversy shows how democratic institutions can still exist formally while the norms and boundaries that guide them become increasingly contested.
Coster, Helen & Dawn Kopecki. 2026. “Trump Government Ads Draw Scrutiny Weeks Before Midterm Elections.” Reuters. September 28, 2026.
Dahl, Robert. 1972. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition.New Haven: Yale University Press. Chapter 1.
Levitsky, Steven & Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown. Chapters 5 and 6
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1943. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers. Chapters 21 and 22
Varol, Ozan. 2015. “Stealth Authoritarianism.” Iowa Law Review 100(4): pp.1673-1742. Parts I, II, and III.
I enjoyed this post, particularly how you used Varol’s stealth authoritarianism to explain why this controversy is difficult to evaluate, since government advertising is a legitimate function that only becomes concerning in how it is used. Your distinction between whether the ads are legal and whether they weaken democratic norms was the strongest part, and connecting it to Levitsky and Ziblatt’s idea of forbearance made that point clear.