司法 · 纳税人出资的广告法官叫停纳税人出资的特朗普广告及相关协议文字 2026年10月12日 UTC 07:21观看文字实录0:09A federal judge ordered Trump's administration to cancel taxpayer-funded TV ads0:14promoting his political message, Homeland Security paid for the campaign, with0:17spending put at $19 to $20 million.0:20The court also blocks new or expanded advertising agreements for two weeks.0:24Will that stop the campaign from continuing or restarting?0:27And what happens to the public money already spent?0:29Judge Jennifer L.0:30Roshan ordered the remaining commercials canceled, including spots scheduled for0:34Sunday night, October 11th.0:36The ads featured President Donald Trump and promoted his political message.0:40The Department of Homeland Security funded them.0:42The administration must cancel the remaining challenged ads for 14 days.0:47It also can't enter into renew or expand agreements to make place or air them.0:51Those contracting restrictions put a court-enforced barrier between this campaign0:55and a restart.0:56Roshan issued a temporary restraining order, an emergency measure while the lawsuit1:00proceeds.1:01The court still has to decide the broader case.1:03The immediate restrictions cover the advertisements being challenged and the1:06agreements used to produce and broadcast them.1:08The spending figures conflict.1:10One puts the cost at $20 million.1:13Another puts taxpayer money already spent at $19 million.1:16That's a million dollar difference.1:18And nobody has explained how the two figures fit together or supplied a reconciled1:22final bill.1:23The $20 million spending figure reportedly came from a $175 million immigration1:28enforcement package.1:30Its precise terms remain unclear.1:32That leaves an important accounting question.1:34How much money was authorized, how much was committed to contracts, and how much was1:38actually paid?1:39Canceling future commercials doesn't automatically return money already spent.1:43Nobody has supplied a refund or savings figure.1:46The financial consequence will depend on the agreements behind the campaign and what1:50money can actually be recovered.1:51Common Cause brought the challenge in Manhattan's federal court.1:54The nonpartisan government accountability organization leads a coalition that1:58includes an Alabama State House candidate.2:00Their dispute concerns federal agency money used to promote the president's2:04political message.2:05The other plaintiffs include service employees, international union local 32BJ, and2:10Empire State, 32 BJSEIU PAC.2:13The union and its political action committee are separate parties to the lawsuit.2:16Robert Hunter, an Alabama State House candidate, is a plaintiff.2:20Homeland Security Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen is a defendant.2:23So are Budget Director Russell Vought and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.2:27They're sued in their government roles.2:29The agencies named as defendants are Homeland Security, the Office of Management and2:34Budget, and the Executive Office of the President.2:37The case puts responsibility for the advertising campaign across several parts of2:42the administration.2:43The complaint is dated October 7th.2:45While the public description says the plaintiff sued October 8th, the one-day2:49difference hasn't been resolved.2:50By October 11th, Roshan had imposed the emergency restrictions.2:54Campaign Legal Center also asked the Office of Special Counsel to investigate2:58employees' conduct.2:59Its October 7th complaint targets possible prohibited political activity at work by3:03employees of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, the Budget Office,3:07and the White House.3:08The Hatch Act limits political activity by federal employees.3:12Campaign Legal Center's request asks investigators to determine whether employees3:16cross those limits.3:17That separate request doesn't tell us which legal arguments Roshan relied on to3:21impose the court order.3:22The Justice Department argued an emergency order was unnecessary because the3:26campaign was ending.3:27The stated stopping point differs between Sunday, October 11th, and the following3:31day.3:32Roshan nevertheless ordered the remaining commercials canceled and blocked further3:36agreements.3:36Roshan rejected the suggestion that a planned ending made the dispute moot, meaning3:41there was nothing left for the court to resolve.3:43Her restrictions also reached the agreements that could keep the challenged campaign3:47going or bring it back.3:48The government also challenged standing whether these plaintiffs can sue.3:52It disputed irreparable harm, the need for immediate protection, and it challenged3:57venue where the case should proceed.3:59Its emergency opposition focused on those objections rather than defending the4:03advertisement's legality.4:05The White House compared the campaign with public service announcements under former4:08presidents.4:09The plaintiffs challenge the use of public money for partisan promotion.4:13The lawsuit will test the challenged campaign's legality as the temporary4:17restrictions take effect.4:18A separate lawsuit in Washington names the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and Yi Leng4:22Sheng as plaintiffs.4:24That case adds another challenge to government-funded advertising, while Roshan's4:28order governs the immediate restrictions in the Manhattan case.4:31A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, October 13th.4:34At 2 p.m., the court can maintain, change, or end the immediate restrictions while4:39the case proceeds.4:40The administration is now bound by the cancellation order and the temporary4:43contracting barrier.4:45We don't yet know which scheduled commercials were actually canceled or whether4:48every affected agreement was halted.4:50The court has imposed a stop, but compliance and the final accounting for taxpayer4:54money remain unresolved.阅读文章事件时间线HeyDex短视频 ↗谁报道了什么多家媒体报道的要点✓Judge issues temporary restraining order against ads已独立证实 · 6 家媒体✓Order requires cancellation of remaining ad placements已独立证实 · 3 家媒体✓Order restricts new ad agreements for two weeks已独立证实 · 2 家媒体Ads continued airing after court order2 家媒体✓Plaintiffs’ challenge to the ad funding已独立证实 · 2 家媒体Trump’s pledge to fund the ads privately2 家媒体Administration explanation for missing the order2 家媒体Administration account of campaign end date2 家媒体仅一家媒体报道的要点16仅KCRA/AP报道DHS spending on the ads10月12日 0:06 UTCScheduled hearing time10月12日 0:06 UTCDOJ arguments against the lawsuit10月12日 0:06 UTCFunding source for the ad spending10月12日 0:06 UTCDOJ argument that an order was unnecessary10月12日 0:06 UTC仅Associated Press报道Ads paid for with taxpayer money10月12日 6:30 UTC仅ABC News报道Possible reimbursement of ad spending10月12日 9:59 UTC仅NPR报道Ad spending after Trump’s private funding pledge10月12日 22:16 UTCTotal taxpayer spending on the ads10月12日 22:16 UTCWhite House account of when paid ads ended10月12日 22:16 UTC仅The Guardian报道The order required Trump’s administration to temporarily halt the broadcasts.10月13日 11:43 UTC仅MS NOW报道Judge’s reasoning on the ads’ legality10月13日 23:35 UTCAP tally of alleged court order violations10月13日 20:03 UTCDeadline for ads to stop airing10月13日 20:03 UTCDOJ apology for ads continuing to run10月13日 23:35 UTC仅The Hill报道Campaign status at the time of interview10月14日 13:07 UTC每一行都是我们从该媒体报道中记录的说法。比较截至 2026年10月14日 UTC 14:02。
