In what is shaping up to be one of the most contentious uses of federal advertising funds in recent memory, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has spent at least $51 million this year on a sweeping ad campaign that repeatedly thanks President Donald Trump for his immigration policies and urges undocumented immigrants to leave the country. According to reporting by Axios and industry analysts at AdImpact, the campaign has become the largest political advertising expenditure of 2025, eclipsing even the most high-profile candidate-driven efforts.
The ads, which have saturated the airwaves—especially on Fox News Channel, where about $9 million worth have aired so far—feature Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as the face and voice of the administration's "self-deportation" push. In a series of direct-to-camera videos, Noem delivers a stark message: "President Trump has a clear message for those that are in our country illegally. Leave now. If you don’t, we will find you and we will deport you. You will never return." These words, echoing the rhetoric that has characterized Trump’s approach to immigration since his earliest campaign days, are delivered with a sense of finality that leaves little room for ambiguity.
Three of the most prominent ads open with the phrase, "Thank you, President Donald J. Trump for securing our border and putting America first." The phrase "President Trump" is, in fact, the most frequently mentioned term across the entire campaign, as noted by Axios. The messaging is unmistakably aligned with the president’s own campaign themes, raising eyebrows among critics who see the ads as little more than taxpayer-funded political propaganda.
In one ad titled "WARNING," Noem blames "weak politicians" for leaving borders open and allowing drugs, human trafficking, and violent criminals to "flood" American communities. She stops short of naming any party, but the implication is clear. "They put American lives at risk," she says, before pivoting back to the administration’s hardline stance: "If you leave now, you may have an opportunity to return, and enjoy our freedom, and live the American dream. But understand this. Under President Trump, America’s borders are closed to law breakers. Follow the law, and you’ll find opportunity. Break it, and you’ll find consequences."
According to AdImpact, this $51 million blitz is part of a much larger $200 million contract aimed at promoting the administration’s mass deportation agenda. The contract itself was awarded under what DHS described as "unusual and compelling urgency," bypassing the typical competitive bidding process. This has only fueled further criticism from those who see the campaign as an abuse of public funds for political ends.
Notably, the ads have not been limited to traditional public service announcement venues. Fox News Channel, whose audience skews older, conservative, and overwhelmingly white, has become a primary beneficiary of the campaign’s largesse. As reported by AdImpact, this demographic does not closely align with the population the ads ostensibly target—undocumented immigrants—but the spending has the effect of financially rewarding a network known for its staunch support of Trump and the Republican Party. This dynamic has not gone unnoticed by media critics and political observers alike.
When pressed about the overtly political tone of the ads, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Axios that the spots are "a public service announcement urging illegal aliens to leave," and denied that they are political in nature. However, the repeated references to President Trump and the campaign-style messaging have drawn skepticism. According to The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell, "Your tax dollars and mine are being used to thank President Trump. That’s right, the biggest political ad spender of 2025 is DHS using your money." U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) was even more blunt, calling the effort "using your tax dollars for political propaganda."
The controversy does not end with the ads themselves. Secretary Noem has also come under fire for a DHS video in which she explicitly blames Democrats for the recent federal government shutdown and its impacts on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The Associated Press reported that multiple airports across the country have refused to play the video, viewing it as inappropriately partisan. Critics have pointed out that, contrary to the video’s claims, the shutdown was in fact the result of actions by congressional Republicans, not Democrats.
Beyond the ad campaign, the Trump administration’s use of taxpayer money for projects that critics call self-aggrandizing has drawn additional scrutiny. As reported by various outlets, taxpayers are currently footing the bill for the construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom at the White House and for plans to erect an arch near the Lincoln Memorial—both projects closely associated with the president’s personal ambitions. Earlier this year, Noem herself submitted a budget request for a $50 million jet, which many observers believe would primarily serve to facilitate her travel for public appearances and photo opportunities across the country.
Absent from the glossy DHS ads, however, is any mention of the more controversial aspects of the current administration’s immigration enforcement policies. According to reporting by AdImpact and other sources, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been engaged in aggressive operations across the United States, including the detention and deportation of children. Critics, including immigrant advocacy groups, have described these efforts as a "campaign of terror" against migrant communities, their families, and friends. The ads, they argue, do nothing to address the fear and disruption experienced by these communities on a daily basis.
Supporters of the administration’s approach argue that the tough messaging and aggressive enforcement are necessary to restore order to the nation’s immigration system and protect American citizens. They contend that previous administrations failed to secure the border, resulting in increased crime, drug trafficking, and human suffering. For these advocates, the DHS campaign is simply an overdue public information effort that reflects the will of the voters who elected President Trump on a platform of border security and law enforcement.
Opponents, meanwhile, see a dangerous blurring of lines between government communications and partisan campaigning. They warn that the use of public funds to promote a sitting president and his policies undermines the principle of nonpartisan governance and sets a troubling precedent for future administrations. The fact that the ads bypassed the usual procurement process and were awarded under a claim of "urgency" only heightens these concerns.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the DHS advertising blitz has become a flashpoint in the broader struggle over the role of government, the limits of executive power, and the ethical use of taxpayer dollars. With the 2025 election cycle heating up and immigration remaining a deeply polarizing issue, the fallout from this campaign is likely to reverberate for months—if not years—to come.
For now, the American public is left to grapple with the implications of a federal agency spending tens of millions to publicly thank the president it serves, even as the nation’s political and cultural divides continue to widen.