Trust in government begins close to home, with whether it makes daily life better for us.
Wouldn’t we like to live and hear that message?
Instead, we see images of power.
President Trump’s television spots are visually beautiful. Powerful even. The editing is polished. The president looks commanding. Everything invites us to admire the images of our mighty, high-testosterone country on the screen.
In the world of television promotional marketing, we call these ads “image spots.” I prefer the slang “joyful noise.”
Then the commercial ends, and we return to the country in which we actually live.
The grocery bill. The rent. The insurance premium. The calculation about whether a medical appointment can wait.
That is the profound disconnect in the three taxpayer-funded television advertisements celebrating Donald Trump’s presidency. They offer an attractive picture of presidential success without establishing that the administration has delivered a better quality of life for us across the country.
And we are paying for this propaganda. At least for the moment, we’re paying for it. Trump now says he’ll use funds from his MAGA, Inc., PAC to cover the cost. If that’s the case, that claim should be included in the commercial spot. We’ll see.
Associated Press reporters Lisa Mascaro and Ali Swenson reported that the Department of Homeland Security committed $20 million to the advertising campaign. The White House defends the spots as public service announcements. Experts interviewed by AP pointed out that the ads do not help us access a specific government program.
A genuine public service announcement has a useful job: Tell us how to obtain assistance, prepare for danger or protect our health.
What useful action does a commercial celebrating the president ask us to take? Admire him? Feel grateful? Set aside what our own household finances tell us?
These ads are NOT public service announcements.
Our government has a responsibility to explain its work. It has no entitlement to our money for the cultivation of presidential glory.
The ads beautifully project power, but that makes their failure more revealing. They demonstrate an administration’s ability to produce an appealing image. They do not demonstrate its ability to make our daily lives more affordable or secure.
Consider the administration’s signature tax and spending law. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that, averaged over 2026 through 2034, households in the lowest income tenth would lose roughly $1,200 annually in resources, while those in the highest tenth would gain about $13,600. Those resources include the value of benefits such as health coverage and food assistance, not simply cash income.
Some of us, including those in middle-income households, stand to benefit. Accuracy requires acknowledging that.
But a policy that delivers gains to affluent households while reducing resources for the poorest cannot credibly serve as proof of prosperity for all of us. The projected losses also give those of us struggling to get by reason to question whether the advertised future includes us.
A beautiful commercial cannot answer that question. Policy can.
For politicians insulated by wealth, access and professional handlers, national success may look like a favorable stock portfolio or a triumphant television appearance. For those of us in working families, success may mean having enough left after necessities to handle a broken refrigerator.
A government that confuses those experiences has lost touch with us.
Does Trump think we are stupid? We cannot know his private thoughts, though he has said, “I love the poorly educated.” But this advertising asks us to accept an insulting proposition: That an image of success deserves more weight than evidence of how we are living.
Journalists should challenge that proposition every time it appears.
Which of our households benefited? Which lost ground? What happened to our purchasing power, health coverage and financial security? What evidence supports the commercial’s claims?
And local reporters should put two direct questions to every congressional candidate and incumbent: Will you follow through to make sure MAGA, Inc., pays for the advertising spots? Will you take action to withhold the use of future tax dollars to finance advertisements that glorify the president?
Party loyalty is no substitute for an answer. Neither is changing the subject.
We can love our country and still struggle to afford a life in it. We can respect the presidency and still object to financing a president’s self-promotion.
We deserve representatives who understand those differences.
The administration found money to tell us how wonderful things are. It owes us evidence that our lives are getting better, if that’s even possible.
Until then, the most revealing words in these commercials may be the ones identifying who paid for them.
We did.
Will that fill your car’s gas tank or buy your groceries?