Judge Orders Trump Administration to Stop Controversial Promotional Ads
A federal judge this week ordered an end to television ads funded by the U.S. government that promote President Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon in New York was responding to lawsuits filed by advocacy groups and Democrats.
“Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits, will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, the balance of the equities tips in their favor, and an injunction serves the public interest,” Rochon wrote in her ruling.
The Democratic National Committee and other plaintiffs argued the spending violates federal restrictions on using public funds for partisan propaganda and campaign activity.
Most of the $20 million in Homeland Security Department funds allocated for the ads had been spent when the judge issued the order.
Trump denied trying to be self-indulgent as he confronted criticism. He said he was trying to inspire pride in Americans.
The ads also prompted allegations that the president disregarded federal restrictions on government publicity and partisan political activity in violation of the Hatch Act.
Trump’s ads portray his presidency as ushering in a “golden age of America.” They mention tax cuts, “reigniting American manufacturing,” border security and military action while featuring the president prominently.
One ad declares that “America will never be a communist country.” In another, Trump says the United States will defeat “communism, socialism and Marxism.” Other ads use patriotic imagery, including Mount Rushmore.
They ended with a disclaimer, saying, “Paid for by the U.S. Government.”
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” “You can’t spend public money to promote yourself.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said, “It shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars.”
Trump has given no indication that he will discontinue the ads, only that he would fund them through his political action committee. He did not say whether he would reimburse the government for the cost of the ads.
When a reporter outside the White House asked Trump about reimbursement, he said, “Well, the ads were really good. They were promotion for the country. Done by many presidents before, so we’ll decide.”
The timing of the ads is part of the controversy. They were running as both parties intensify their advertising campaigns ahead of the midterm elections next month, thereby blurring the distinction between government public service announcements and political advertising.
Richard Painter, who served as chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said the advertisements appeared inconsistent with federal rules banning use of public funds for publicity. He called the ads “propaganda.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called one of the advertisements “an absolute violation of what a democracy is supposed to look like.” He said Americans who might have been watching a football game should not “be force-fed Trump’s propaganda on their own dime.”
The White House defended the broadcasts as public service announcements.
A White House spokesperson said one of the ads was “educational and unapologetically patriotic.”
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Defense Tries to Suppress Confession of Alleged U.S. Capital Pipe Bomber
Attorneys for the man accused of placing pipe bombs outside the Democratic and Republican national committee headquarters before the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol are trying to suppress his confession with new allegations of misconduct by the FBI.
Their motion filed late last month argues the FBI used psychologically coercive interrogation techniques.
They say Brian J. Cole Jr.'s autism made him vulnerable to threatening influences, meaning the confession should be excluded at trial.
Prosecutors say they have evidence to support legitimate use of his confession. The trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 16.
Cole was arrested nearly five years after the unexploded bombs were planted. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempted use of weapons of mass destruction and committing an act of terrorism while armed.
The explosives were discovered as thousands of supporters of then-President Donald Trump gathered in Washington and later stormed the Capitol, interrupting Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory.
Cole initially denied any involvement in the attempted bombing while being interrogated by FBI agents on Dec. 4, 2025.
Defense attorneys said in their U.S. District Court filing that FBI agents engaged in a “methodical dismantling” of a man whose autism left him “unable to withstand the psychologically coercive tactics deployed against him.”
The 42-page court filing says FBI agents intensified their questioning after Cole repeatedly insisted he was innocent.
According to the motion, Cole told investigators, “How am I supposed to explain that I’m innocent?”
His lawyers say he eventually began “stimming” during the questioning, or repetitive behavior that they characterize as a sign of acute emotional distress. It also is associated with autism.
The motion describes the moment when agents showed Cole surveillance video of the pipe bomb suspect. According to the motion, an agent asked, “Do you recognize that person?”
Cole answered, “No.” Asked whether he had watched the video before, he again said, “No.”
The defense says an agent then warned him, “Lying to federal agents is breaking the law. That’s another crime, so more lies just makes it worse, okay? No, look at me. Do you understand that?”
Seconds later, according to the transcript quoted in the motion, the agent asked, “So, is this individual you?” Cole answered, “Yes.”
Cole’s attorneys say the FBI implication of a threat caused him to change his answer.
“Mr. Cole had just denied recognizing himself in it. It was the product of the threat – the agents turned ‘No’ into ‘Yes’ by telling him that ‘No’ was itself a crime,” the lawyers wrote in their filing.
They also allege the FBI agents threatened to “drag” Cole’s family into the investigation and subject them to similar treatment unless he told investigators what they considered the truth.
Justice Department officials say they will respond in a court filing but so far have denied wrongdoing. Prosecutors previously said that after Cole admitted planting the pipe bombs, he spent about 90 minutes explaining how he built, transported and placed them.
Other evidence separate from the confession added to the case against Cole, according to prosecutors. The FBI says Cole’s Nissan Sentra was recorded by a license plate reader near South Capitol Street on Jan. 5, 2021, and that cellphone records placed his phone in the vicinity of the Republican and Democratic national committee headquarters about the time the bombs were planted.
Investigators also say they identified components in the pipe bombs that Cole purchased near his home in Woodbridge, Va.
The case is United States v. Cole, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Disney Co. Attorneys Say Federal Communications Commission is Seeking Revenge
Attorneys for Walt Disney Co. argued in federal court in Washington, D.C., last week that it is unfairly being targeted for revenge by the Trump administration because of broadcasts by its ABC television network subsidiary.
The company is seeking a court order to stop the Federal Communications Commission from conducting early reviews of broadcast licenses for eight stations owned by ABC.
If the FCC removes the licenses, it could shut down the stations and hurt earnings for both ABC and Disney Co.
President Donald Trump has criticized ABC for its news coverage and for comments by its talk show hosts.
After Trump berated ABC in April, the FCC announced it would review the licenses of the eight stations affiliated with Disney Co.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said when he announced the reviews that they resulted from a yearlong investigation into whether Disney Co.’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies unlawfully discriminate against employees.
The FCC requires as a condition of its licenses that broadcasters refrain from discriminatory hiring, promotion and compensation practices. The Trump administration describes hiring preferences for minorities a form of racial discrimination.
The stations’ licenses were not scheduled for renewal until October 2028. It was the first early license review by the agency in more than 50 years.
Disney Co. sued in August seeking a temporary injunction against the FCC. The company said job discrimination was not the real issue.
It called the FCC’s actions an “extraordinary assault on free speech” and a “campaign of censorship.”
U.S. District Court Judge Loren AliKahn expressed skepticism during the two-hour court hearing of the FCC’s argument that it was reviewing the ABC stations’ licenses because the network was uncooperative in a “discovery” dispute over its diversity policies.
“I imagine we have a lot of discovery disputes with a lot of your licensees,” AliKahn said. “So what is it that made this so different that you needed to call for an early license renewal?”
Disney Co. says the FCC is motivated by Trump’s condemnations of satirical comments by late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel and political criticisms on the talk show The View, as well as some ABC news reports.
After Trump survived two assassination attempts in 2024, Kimmel joked that Melania Trump had “a glow like an expectant widow.” Two days later, an armed man tried to shoot his way into the White House Correspondents Association dinner while the president was seated at a table.
Kimmel said he was referring to Trump’s advanced age, not assassination attempts.
Trump called the joke a “despicable call to violence” and said Kimmel should be “immediately fired” by ABC and Disney.
On The View, co-host Joy Behar said in 2025 that Trump was “so jealous” of Barack Obama, prompting a White House spokesperson to suggest the show should be pulled from the air.
In 2024, Trump sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos over Stephanopoulos' statement that Trump had been found civilly liable for rape. ABC later settled the lawsuit by agreeing to pay $15 million toward Trump's presidential library and to publish a statement expressing regret for the remarks.
In August 2025, Trump accused ABC and NBC of being “an arm of the Democrat Party and should, according to many, have their licenses revoked by the FCC."
Disney Co. won support for its lawsuit in a Sept. 17 amicus brief filed in U.S. District Court by a bipartisan group of 18 former FCC chairs, commissioners and senior officials. They urged the judge to halt the FCC’s early license review of Disney Co.’s stations, arguing that it was an unconstitutional use of licensing authority to punish ABC for speech the Trump administration disliked.
Government attorneys filed motions to dismiss the Disney Co. lawsuit. They argued that the lawsuit is premature because the FCC has not yet made any decision on whether to revoke the ABC stations’ licenses.
The judge is expected to issue a ruling within days.
If the FCC seeks to revoke the stations’ licenses, the next step would be public hearings. The FCC has agreed to provide the court and Disney at least 48 hours notice before ordering the revocation hearings.
The lawsuit is American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al., filed Aug. 18, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Maryland Appeals Court Says Methodist Church Must Resolve its Own Dispute
A Maryland appellate court last week upheld a ruling favoring the Baltimore-Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church in a dispute with 37 congregations seeking to leave the denomination but retain their properties.
The dissident local congregations sued the conference, its board of trustees and Bishop LaTrelle Easterling over conditions placed on their departure.
They included a requirement that they pay 50 percent of the assessed value of the real estate they want to retain.
The dispute arose over divided opinions within the United Methodist Church over issues of sexuality, including church policies on same sex relationships and the ordination and marriage of LGBTQ people.
The United Methodist Church allows same-sex marriages following major policy changes approved at its 2024 General Conference that took effect last year. It also allows LGBTQ people to be ordained as clergy.
The 37 congregations argued that the Baltimore-Washington Conference improperly used its control over property held in trust for each denomination to impede their departure. They also alleged conference officials engaged in constructive fraud, breached fiduciary duties and mismanaged clergy pension funds.
The churches sued in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Baltimore-Washington Conference.
The ruling said First Amendment's protections for religious autonomy barred judicial resolution of key questions.
The court concluded that deciding whether the conference violated church doctrine, acted contrary to the congregations' religious interests or improperly managed church resources would require judges to evaluate matters reserved for the denomination's own governing institutions.
The ruling was based on the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. It is a legal principle that prevents civil courts from resolving disputes when it would require them to interpret religious doctrine or decide questions of internal church governance.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
D.C. Elections Board Overturns Fine Against Mayoral Candidate
The District of Columbia Board of Elections last week overturned a $16,000 fine against Democratic mayoral nominee Janeese Lewis George and her campaign.
The Elections Board said there was insufficient evidence to prove Lewis George illegally coordinated with labor unions and a union-funded political committee supporting her candidacy.
The decision reversed a June ruling by the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance, which had concluded that Lewis George's campaign violated campaign finance laws through its relationships with labor organizations and Safe & Affordable DC, an independent expenditure committee that spent money supporting her campaign.
The Elections Board also overturned a separate $4,000 fine against the committee.
Lewis George, a D.C. Council member representing Ward 4, is the Democratic nominee to succeed Mayor Muriel Bowser, who is not running for a fourth term.
The campaign finance office's investigation focused in part on arrangements under which five union employees worked for Lewis George's campaign while remaining on union payrolls. The employees included campaign manager Adam Yalowitz and campaign spokesperson Amanda Michelle Gomez, according to the agency's original findings.
Investigators questioned whether safeguards intended to separate campaign operations from independent political spending by unions and others were sufficient to prevent prohibited coordination.
Lewis George's campaign argued that the employees worked under written agreements designed to prevent coordination. The campaign challenged the campaign finance office's classification of certain campaign expenses as illegal.
Under District law, independent expenditure committees may raise and spend money without the contribution limits that apply to candidate campaigns, provided their spending remains independent. If a committee coordinates its expenditures with a candidate, those expenditures can be treated as contributions subject to legal limits.
The Elections Board said the campaign finance office failed to prove the collusion it alleged.
In response, D.C. Council member Brianne K. Nadeau has called for an outside investigation into the campaign finance office's handling of the case.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.