Blue Press Journal

Tag: Hatch Act violation

  • Federal Watchdogs Take On Trump Ads as Illegal Propaganda

    A complaint against the Trump administration was filed on Tuesday with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). It claims that the Trump’s recent government-funded television advertisements are illegal because they violate federal laws banning public funding of political propaganda.

    The petition asks the FCC and the FTC to demand that television channels stop broadcasting these commercials and warns that continuing to do so will make the stations “liable for playing ads that violate federal law.” According to Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the Public Citizen, “It’s stunning that the administration not only ignored last week’s anti-American ad but doubled down by running a second taxpayer-funded piece during the heavily watched Sunday football games. These illegal ads should be taken off the air immediately and the White House’s many violations should be investigated.”

    Besides the FCC and the FTC, the organization asked the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Special Counsel to review whether the administration violated the Hatch Act and other laws.

    What do the ads say and how are they paid for?

    Three different advertisements, all of which include the disclaimer “Paid for by the U.S. Government,” started to air last week. They began airing on Fox News and later started to appear during NFL and college football games and on Newsmax, a conservative-leaning cable channel. In total, the government spent over $1 million on the ads, according to the Wall Street Journal. The money was allocated from the Customs and Border Protection budget, which does not have any apparent connection to the content of the advertisements.

    One of the ads includes the voice of former President Trump, who claims that “America will never become a communist country,” and a commentary by UFC President Dana White, who calls Trump “the toughest, most resilient person I’ve ever met,” set to the rhythm of the song “Love me.” Another ad is similar to the campaign’s video depicting Trump for the 2024 presidential election. It includes Trump’s speech: “We’re gonna liberate our country from these villains,” referring to “sick political class that hates our nation” and “fake news media.”

    The third video, which includes a narration by Trump, juxtaposes scenes of Mount Rushmore and claims that “Our administration marks the beginning of America’s golden age.” The White House’s argument counters the allegations that the ads are illegal. The White House argues that these are public service announcements similar to those used by other presidents to encourage citizens to enroll in the Affordable Care Act.

    According to the White House, the ads are justified since they “inform the public about important government services and programs.” However, According to Public Citizen, the ads “contain no legitimate government message; are aimed at influencing the presidential election; and therefore violate numerous statutes, including the prohibition on using federal funds for campaign propaganda and the Hatch Act.”

    Representatives from both sides agree that the ads carry a message that favors the president and his party and can damage the reputation of the government in the eyes of the public. At the same time, according to the complaint, “None of the ads mention any government program or attempt to explain how government works. Each ad seeks to promote the private interests of Donald Trump and advance the political interests of the Republican Party by manipulating the electorate ahead of the 2026 mid-term elections.”

    A bipartisan opinion on the issue

    Apart from progressive organizations, even some Republicans were concerned about the ads. Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, was apparently surprised by the videos. “I hate it. It reminds me of Viktor Orbán and the people in Hungary. There’s no way to do that here.” Senator John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, stated, “The message is fine. Pity it is paid for by the taxpayers.”

    Can the complaint against Trump’s ads lead to any changes?

    Probably not, considering that the heads of both the FCC and the FTC are Trump appointees, and the President himself has repeatedly accused these agencies of being out of control. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has upheld presidential authority to remove officials from government positions for refusing to carry out presidential orders. All of this suggests that there is a real danger that the budget funds allocated to the advertisers will be reallocated to propaganda.

  • Secret SSA Data Controversy: Trump-Era DOGE Team Tied to Election Overturn Efforts

    Hatch Act Violations and Data Security Breaches

    Blue Press Journal (DC)

    In a shocking revelation that raises serious concerns about data security and political interference within the U.S. government, newly disclosed Justice Department documents show that two members of Elon Musk’s so-called DOGE team — embedded at the Social Security Administration (SSA) during the Trump administration — maintained secret communications with an advocacy group allegedly seeking to overturn election results in key states. 

    According to a filing by Elizabeth Shapiro, a senior Justice Department official, one of these DOGE team members even signed an agreement that may have been intended to use Social Security data to match against state voter rolls — a move that could constitute a serious breach of federal law and a violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from using their positions for partisan purposes. 

    These disclosures, first highlighted in The Washington Post and Reuters, appear to undermine previous SSA claims that the DOGE unit’s mission was purely to “detect fraud, waste, and abuse” and modernize the agency’s technology systems. 

    A Pattern of Risky Data Practices

    Shapiro’s filing — which corrects earlier testimony by SSA officials — reveals that DOGE staff stored sensitive data on unapproved third-party servers, including the commercial service Cloudflare, which is outside SSA’s security protocols. The SSA admitted it had no knowledge of this practice at the time and still cannot confirm what data was uploaded or whether it remains accessible. 

    In one particularly troubling episode, Steve Davis, a senior adviser to Musk, was copied on an email containing a password-protected file with private information of roughly 1,000 individuals from SSA systems. Investigators have yet to determine if Davis accessed the file, but its mere transmission outside secure channels represents a significant security lapse. 

    Court Orders and Ignored Restrictions

    The Justice Department also revealed that DOGE team members had access to private Social Security profiles even after a federal court had explicitly prohibited such access. While the SSA insists the access was “never utilized,” one DOGE member also retained two months of access to a “call center profile” containing sensitive personal data. 

    These revelations echo broader concerns raised by ProPublica and NBC News about politicization and data misuse during the Trump era, when multiple agencies faced allegations of bending or breaking protocol to serve partisan objectives. 

    The Political Danger

    The possibility that Social Security data — one of the most sensitive datasets in the federal government — could have been leveraged for political purposes is alarming. If confirmed, it would represent a profound abuse of public trust and a potential violation of federal election law. 

    Critics argue this fits into a larger pattern of the Trump administration blurring the lines between governance and political gain. The fact that these activities may have involved high-profile tech figures tied to Elon Musk only deepens the controversy. 

    Trump’s Lack of Accountability

    Neither the SSA nor the White House has responded to requests for comment. The Justice Department has not publicly identified the two DOGE members or the advocacy group involved, leaving many unanswered questions about the scope of the potential breach. 

    The public deserves transparency — especially when the integrity of Social Security data and the sanctity of U.S. elections are at stake. Until full accountability is established, this case stands as a stark warning about the dangers of mixing political agendas with the stewardship of sensitive federal information.

    Also see: AARP calls for accountability over DOGE sharing Social Security data