EXCLUSIVE: Trump Accused of Blowing 'Millions' in Taxpayer Cash on 'Narcissistic Ego Trips' — Lawmakers Demand Federal Investigation
Trump has been accused of using taxpayer money on his 'ego trips.'
Oct. 2 2026, Published 7:55 p.m. ET
President Trump has been accused of blowing millions in taxpayer cash on what furious lawmakers branded "narcissistic ego trips," prompting demands for federal watchdogs to investigate whether his administration broke the law, RadarOnline.com can reveal.
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin and Rep. George Whitesides called on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to investigate government-funded television advertisements promoting Trump ahead of the midterm elections.
Trump 'Stealing' Taxpayer Cash?
Trump has been accused of blowing 'millions' in taxpayer cash.
In a blistering letter dated September 30, the Democratic lawmakers demanded investigators uncover the source, accounts, and total amount of taxpayer money used to produce and distribute the advertisements across major television markets and official White House social media channels.
They wrote: "President Trump is obviously desperate for the American people to 'love' him, a problem that goes beyond your jurisdiction."
"But stealing taxpayer dollars to pay for Mr. Trump's narcissistic ego trips is plainly illegal," they alleged.
The lawmakers have not stopped at demanding an accounting of the money.
Trump's 30-Second Ad Under the Spotlight
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin called on the GAO to investigate Trump's ads.
They want the GAO to determine whether the advertisements violated the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026, the Hatch Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act, or applicable federal criminal statutes. They separately asked the OSC to investigate possible Hatch Act violations and determine who, if anyone, should be held accountable.
The controversy centers on advertisements carrying the disclaimer "Paid for by the U.S. Government."
One 30-second spot reportedly features dozens of images of Trump while a singer repeatedly implores listeners to "love me." UFC President Dana White is also heard describing Trump as the "toughest and most resilient person" he has ever met.
White House Pushes Back
Rep. George Whitesides has also joined Raskin in asking Trump to be investigated.
Days later, another government-funded advertisement reportedly featured a close-up of Trump walking down a hallway while audio from one of his political rallies played in the background.
Raskin and Whitesides argued the advertisements cannot legitimately be considered public service announcements, alleging they are "virtually identical" to material Trump used during his 2024 presidential campaign, including the same footage and messaging.
The White House has pushed back on the political characterization.
According to the lawmakers' letter, an anonymous White House spokesperson previously described the advertisements as "educational" and argued they were "clearly not political" because Trump himself is not on the ballot.
Hatch Act Chaos
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Dana White's voice appears in the Trump ad.
But Raskin and Whitesides argue that administration employees involved in producing or distributing the advertisements could face scrutiny under the Hatch Act, which restricts certain political activities by executive branch employees. Trump himself is exempt from the law.
The lawmakers also pointed investigators toward a federal criminal statute prohibiting the theft or knowing misuse of public money, while stopping short of establishing that any criminal violation occurred.
Their demand now puts the spending in the hands of two federal watchdogs, with Raskin and Whitesides seeking not only a full accounting of how much taxpayers ultimately shelled out, but a determination of whether federal officials crossed a legal line.
