# Post ts_117390649505706640

- Post ID: `ts_117390649505706640`
- Platform: Truth Social
- Posted: 2026-10-05T22:25:58.717Z (UTC)
- Deleted: no
- Repost: no
- Canonical URL: https://trump.fm/post/ts_117390649505706640
- Analysis page: https://trump.fm/post/ts_117390649505706640/analysis
- Audio narration: https://static.trump.fm/audio/ts_117390649505706640.mp3 (a synthesized voice reading the post text, not a recording)

## Post text

> The Radical Left is upset with the fact that I am taking Ads, which I consider to be a positive promotion for our Great U.S.A., and paying for them with U.S.A. money. This is a rather standard thing to do but, rather than doing that, although nothing will make them happy, I have decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! President DONALD J. TRUMP

## Engagement

- Likes: 20,717
- Reposts: 5,129
- Replies: 2,126
- Views: unknown
- Metrics collected: 2026-10-07T15:01:02.119Z (UTC)

# Analysis

_Machine-generated by trump.fm on 2026-10-07T20:40:49.983Z (UTC): a model's reading of this post, not his words. Its psychological terms describe the language, not a clinical assessment of him._

## Summary

Trump backs down on paying for ads that praise his presidency with Homeland Security money, but he writes the retreat as a gift. He admits the ads were paid "with U.S.A. money," calls that "a rather standard thing to do," and says he will now pay for them "myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc." In the same clause, "myself" turns into his super PAC's money. He blames the controversy on "The Radical Left," though Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican, also said the ads shouldn't be taxpayer-funded. Leaving out his own party's objection is the one deliberate distortion in the post: it lets him read a forced change as rising above his enemies. He never says the original arrangement was wrong, and "nothing will make them happy" waves off the critics in advance. The tangled sentence and odd phrases like "taking Ads" read as his own writing. In a day that also brought a $5,000-check pledge and an anti-trans nickname, this post is the calm one. What stands out is how freely federal, personal and super PAC money get treated as one pot.

## A retreat written as a gift

The post concedes ground on a live controversy, the reported use of Department of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Protection) funds for television spots praising his presidency, and recasts the concession as patriotic generosity. The structure moves in three steps. It first restates the conduct without apology: "I am taking Ads... and paying for them with U.S.A. money." It then defends that conduct: "This is a rather standard thing to do." Finally it announces a change of course as a personal choice made above his critics: "I have decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself." Nowhere does he say the original arrangement was improper. The change is credited to his own magnanimity, and the clause "although nothing will make them happy" dismisses the critics before the reader reaches the decision. That clause does two jobs. It reframes a forced retreat as a voluntary gift, and it closes off any reading in which the criticism had merit.

This is a redemption sequence in miniature. Exposure becomes an act of self-funded patriotism, and the protagonist ends as benefactor rather than as someone caught using agency money. Rationalization carries most of the weight ("which I consider to be a positive promotion for our Great U.S.A."), with "rather standard" minimizing what was a contested legal question under the appropriations ban on publicity and propaganda. His remark days earlier, "If somebody said that that's wrong, I'll gladly pay the money," shows the same move in its earlier form: the offer to pay arrives as a favor, never as an admission.

## Who objected, and who gets named

The critics are named only as "The Radical Left." Reporting shows the objection was bipartisan. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said, "I like the message, but it shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars." Assigning the complaint to a single partisan enemy is splitting in its ordinary political form. A Republican leader's rebuke, which would carry more weight with his base, becomes a grievance from the out-group, and the retreat can then be read as rising above the left instead of yielding to his own party. The relabeling is the post's main reality distortion. It is mild compared with the denial patterns elsewhere in the archive, but it is deliberate selection, because the bipartisan source of the pressure is the reason he gave way.

## Whose money

The funding pledge shifts within one clause: "pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc." It starts as personal payment and narrows to super PAC money. Read plainly, "myself" here means money under his control, not his own funds, and the blurring of the two follows a long-standing pattern of treating personal, campaign, and institutional resources as one pool. The same blurring is what made the original DHS arrangement contentious. "U.S.A. money" is an odd coinage that makes federal appropriations sound like a shared national account, which suits an argument that the ads were "for the country."

## Voice and timing

The post went up at 6:25 p.m. EDT on a Monday, probably from Washington. That is the end of the business day and does not decide authorship either way. The text decides it. "This is a rather standard thing to do but, rather than doing that, although nothing will make them happy, I have decided..." stacks a misplaced comma, a doubled "rather," an aside dropped mid-clause, and an unclear "that" whose referent has to be worked out. "Taking Ads" for "running ads" is a slightly wrong word choice. A staffer drafting a climbdown on a legal-exposure issue would have written something tidier, probably avoiding the admission "paying for them with U.S.A. money" altogether. The tangled syntax fits his dictation style across 2016 to 2025 and shows no break from it. The thread holds from start to finish, there are no name or time errors, and the signature line is his usual one.

## Within the day's run

The post sits among at least five others from the same day: a $5,000-per-adult payout tied to a midterm win, a claim that The New York Times doctored a photo of Doral, a transphobic nickname for a Senate candidate ("Annie 'Trannie' Andrews"), and a gasoline-price post blaming "Dumocrats." Against that run this post is subdued. It contains no insult beyond the partisan label and no threat, and the hostility amounts to irritation at critics who cannot be "made happy." The concern it raises lies in the fused public and private resources, not in aggression. Jungian terms fit loosely: the King acting as benefactor who pays the realm's bills from his own purse, with the misuse charge pushed onto a disloyal faction.

## Fact Verification

| Claim | Verdict | Evidence |
|-------|---------|----------|
| "The Radical Left is upset that the ads were paid for with government money" | **Half True** | Democrats objected, but so did some Republicans. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said, "I like the message, but it shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars." Calling the criticism a left-only complaint leaves out the Republican objections. |
| "The ads were paid for with U.S.A. (government) money" | **True** | Reporting citing the Wall Street Journal and ABC News says the spots were funded by the Department of Homeland Security through Customs and Border Protection. Cost estimates run from at least $1.7 million to a reported $20 million contract. |
| "Using government money for these ads is a rather standard thing to do" | **Mostly False** | Agency public service announcements are routine. Agency-funded spots praising a sitting president's record before a midterm are not, and they drew bipartisan objection as a possible violation of the appropriations ban on publicity or propaganda. The White House defended them as PSAs because they contain no call to vote. |
| "He will pay for the Patriotic Ads himself and with money raised for MAGA, Inc." | **Half True** | This is a promise about the future, made in a Truth Social post on Monday, Oct. 5, 2026. ABC, PBS/AP, NBC and MS NOW all quote it in full. Two days later, the evidence only partly supports it.

What supports it:
- A White House official told NBC News, ABC and MS NOW that night that "MAGA Inc. will pay for the PSA ads moving forward." The administration therefore stands behind the MAGA Inc. part of the pledge.
- MAGA Inc. can afford it. MS NOW cites its latest FEC filing showing nearly $416 million cash on hand as of Aug. 31. AP/PBS reported more than $400 million at the end of July.

What cuts against it:
- No evidence of personal money. MS NOW reports that the White House official spoke only of MAGA Inc. and "did not say Trump would use personal funds." No outlet reported any personal payment. The "myself" half of the sentence has nothing behind it, and super PAC donations are not his own money.
- Trump hedged the next day. On Oct. 6 he said: "the ads were really good, they were promotion for the country, done by many presidents before, so we will decide." Hours later he told reporters "there's no reason" for the government to stop paying, adding "We have a lot of money in MAGA Inc." (USA Today, carried by Yahoo and the Arizona Daily Star).
- No repayment for ads already aired. A White House official told USA Today, CNN and ABC that the post "was not referring to reimbursement." The spokesperson confirmed Trump will not repay the money already spent. Estimates of that spending run from about $1.4-2.5 million (early AdImpact and AP figures) to more than $10-13 million (later AdImpact figures cited by CNN, NBC and USA Today), out of a $20 million DHS contract with LMD Agency.
- The government-paid ads kept running. Newsweek (Oct. 7, via Yahoo) reported that the original spots were still airing in primetime in several markets within 48 hours of the pledge, still ending with "Paid for by the U.S. Government" (including on Fox & Friends). A White House official said the existing DHS bookings would likely run to the end of their schedules.
- No outlet found a MAGA Inc.-paid version of the ads, a changed disclaimer, or an FEC filing for one. MAGA Inc. did not respond to NBC or MS NOW, and nobody has said when the switch will happen or how anyone could check it.

Bottom line: the pledge is real, and the White House backs MAGA Inc. paying for future ads. As of Oct. 7 it had not been carried out, Trump himself had said the decision was still open, and the claim that he would pay "himself" has no support. Context also confirmed: Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican, said "I like the message. But it shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars." A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 86% of Americans think taxpayer funding of such ads is inappropriate. |

Overall Veracity: 55%

## Authorship Analysis

**Self-Written** (score: 85%)

### Indicators

- Clause-stacked sentence with misplaced comma: "but, rather than doing that, although nothing will make them happy, I have decided"
- Doubled "rather" in one sentence and an unclear "that" referent
- Unusual word choice "taking Ads" and coinage "U.S.A. money"
- Admission against interest ("paying for them with U.S.A. money") a legal-minded staffer would likely remove
- Mid-clause revision of the funding source from "myself" to MAGA, Inc. money

## Psychological Profile

### Traits

**Big Five:**
- Extraversion: 65%
- Agreeableness: 20%
- Conscientiousness: 40%
- Neuroticism: 50%
- Openness: 30%

Strongest facet: Low modesty: a forced reversal presented as personal generosity

**Motives:**
- Agency: 75%
- Communion: 20%

Primary drive: status

### Narrative

- **Role:** Patriot-benefactor who pays the nation's bill out of his own pocket
- **Arc:** redemption
- **Contrasting:** The Radical Left

**Identity Claims:**
- His ads are "a positive promotion for our Great U.S.A."
- He is above critics who can never be satisfied
- He funds patriotism himself

### State

**Grandiose State**

**Trigger:** Narcissistic Injury — Exposure (Reporting that DHS/CBP funds paid for ads praising his presidency, and bipartisan criticism including Senate Majority Leader Thune)

Sentiment: -0.10

### Clinical

**Malignant Narcissism:**
- Narcissistic: 50%
- Antisocial: 35%
- Paranoid: 20%
- Sadism: 5%

**Defense Mechanisms:**
- rationalization (neurotic)
- splitting (immature)
- devaluation (immature)
- denial (pathological)

**Cognitive Complexity:**
- Complexity: 45%

Cognitive Markers:
- circumstantiality

**Parasocial Techniques:**
- Positions the audience as fellow patriots against "The Radical Left"
- Frames the funding switch as a personal sacrifice made on the nation's behalf
- Closing slogan "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" as an in-group signal

## Danger Assessment

**NONE**

### Gaslighting

- Bipartisan criticism (including Senate Majority Leader Thune) recast as a "Radical Left" grievance
- Contested use of agency funds minimized as "a rather standard thing to do"
- Reversal under pressure presented as a voluntary patriotic choice

## Fact Checks (4)

_The model's verdicts from 2026-10-07._

> The Radical Left is upset that the ads were paid for with government money

**HALF TRUE**

Democrats objected, but so did some Republicans. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said, "I like the message, but it shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars." Calling the criticism a left-only complaint leaves out the Republican objections.

Sources: https://www.thedailybeast.com/source-of-taxpayer-money-for-trumps-propaganda-ads-revealed/; https://dnyuz.com/2026/10/02/trump-directed-use-of-taxpayer-money-for-ads-praising-his-presidency/

> The ads were paid for with U.S.A. (government) money

**TRUE**

Reporting citing the Wall Street Journal and ABC News says the spots were funded by the Department of Homeland Security through Customs and Border Protection. Cost estimates run from at least $1.7 million to a reported $20 million contract.

Sources: https://www.thedailybeast.com/source-of-taxpayer-money-for-trumps-propaganda-ads-revealed/; https://dnyuz.com/2026/10/02/trump-directed-use-of-taxpayer-money-for-ads-praising-his-presidency/

> Using government money for these ads is a rather standard thing to do

**MOSTLY FALSE**

Agency public service announcements are routine. Agency-funded spots praising a sitting president's record before a midterm are not, and they drew bipartisan objection as a possible violation of the appropriations ban on publicity or propaganda. The White House defended them as PSAs because they contain no call to vote.

Sources: https://dnyuz.com/2026/10/02/trump-directed-use-of-taxpayer-money-for-ads-praising-his-presidency/; https://www.thedailybeast.com/insiders-reveal-shock-truth-about-trumps-propaganda-ads/

> He will pay for the Patriotic Ads himself and with money raised for MAGA, Inc.

**HALF TRUE**

This is a promise about the future, made in a Truth Social post on Monday, Oct. 5, 2026. ABC, PBS/AP, NBC and MS NOW all quote it in full. Two days later, the evidence only partly supports it.

What supports it:
- A White House official told NBC News, ABC and MS NOW that night that "MAGA Inc. will pay for the PSA ads moving forward." The administration therefore stands behind the MAGA Inc. part of the pledge.
- MAGA Inc. can afford it. MS NOW cites its latest FEC filing showing nearly $416 million cash on hand as of Aug. 31. AP/PBS reported more than $400 million at the end of July.

What cuts against it:
- No evidence of personal money. MS NOW reports that the White House official spoke only of MAGA Inc. and "did not say Trump would use personal funds." No outlet reported any personal payment. The "myself" half of the sentence has nothing behind it, and super PAC donations are not his own money.
- Trump hedged the next day. On Oct. 6 he said: "the ads were really good, they were promotion for the country, done by many presidents before, so we will decide." Hours later he told reporters "there's no reason" for the government to stop paying, adding "We have a lot of money in MAGA Inc." (USA Today, carried by Yahoo and the Arizona Daily Star).
- No repayment for ads already aired. A White House official told USA Today, CNN and ABC that the post "was not referring to reimbursement." The spokesperson confirmed Trump will not repay the money already spent. Estimates of that spending run from about $1.4-2.5 million (early AdImpact and AP figures) to more than $10-13 million (later AdImpact figures cited by CNN, NBC and USA Today), out of a $20 million DHS contract with LMD Agency.
- The government-paid ads kept running. Newsweek (Oct. 7, via Yahoo) reported that the original spots were still airing in primetime in several markets within 48 hours of the pledge, still ending with "Paid for by the U.S. Government" (including on Fox & Friends). A White House official said the existing DHS bookings would likely run to the end of their schedules.
- No outlet found a MAGA Inc.-paid version of the ads, a changed disclaimer, or an FEC filing for one. MAGA Inc. did not respond to NBC or MS NOW, and nobody has said when the switch will happen or how anyone could check it.

Bottom line: the pledge is real, and the White House backs MAGA Inc. paying for future ads. As of Oct. 7 it had not been carried out, Trump himself had said the decision was still open, and the claim that he would pay "himself" has no support. Context also confirmed: Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican, said "I like the message. But it shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars." A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 86% of Americans think taxpayer funding of such ads is inappropriate.

Sources: https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-super-pac-pay-controversial-promotional-ad-campaign/story?id=137019187; https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/after-taxpayer-funded-ads-glorifying-trump-sparked-backlash-he-says-his-super-pac-will-pay-instead; https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/taxpayer-dollars-super-pac-tv-ads-promoting-president-maga-inc-rcna601772; https://www.ms.now/news/trump-says-hell-personally-pay-for-taxpayer-funded-ads-after-bipartisan-backlash; https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-does-not-plan-reimburse-184751926.html; https://tucson.com/news/nation-world/article_b525b35e-2bd1-43a3-bc61-f81484c69c17.html; https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-ads-still-appear-taxpayer-174953194.html; https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/latest-taxpayer-funded-ad-promotes-132318759.html; https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/10/7/most-americans-oppose-trumps-taxpayer-funded-golden-age-ads-poll; https://san.com/cc/trump-defends-using-taxpayer-funded-ads-but-says-maga-super-pac-will-now-pick-up-the-tab/; https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/05/politics/trump-taxpayer-funded-ads-super-pac; https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/05/trump-ads-election.html; https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6130848-trump-to-pay-patriotic-ads-backlash/; https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2026-10-05/trump-says-will-pay-for-tv-ads-after-pushback-over-taxpayer-funding-close-to-election; https://dnyuz.com/2026/10/02/trump-directed-use-of-taxpayer-money-for-ads-praising-his-presidency/

Overall Veracity: 55%

## Tags

- taxpayer-funded ads (90%)
- face-saving reversal (80%)
- MAGA Inc. (60%)
- Radical Left (50%)
- rationalization (70%)
- public-private funds blurring (60%)

## That day

_From trump.fm's machine-generated digest of the day, not his words._

**Trump promises every adult citizen $5,000, payable only if Republicans win the House and Senate**

Trump spent Monday on the midterms, four weeks out. Late Sunday night he praised a same-day vote count he credited to India, though the details matched Brazil's election, and used it to call American voting "CORRUPT." In the late afternoon a New York Times photo of his Doral resort set him off. He insulted two of its reporters by name and said the paper's closing would be "a Great Day for America," then gave a Democratic Senate candidate in South Carolina a crude anti-trans nickname. The evening turned generous: he promised $5,000 to every adult if Republicans win both chambers, and he backed off using government money for ads about his presidency, presenting it as paying the bill out of his own pocket and his super PAC's.

Full digest for 2026-10-05: https://trump.fm/date/2026-10-05/analysis

## Citation

- APA: Trump, D. J. (2026, October 5). The Radical Left is upset with the fact that I am... [Social media post]. Truth Social. trump.fm. https://trump.fm/post/ts_117390649505706640
- MLA: Trump, Donald J. "The Radical Left is upset with the fact that I am taking..." Truth Social, 5 Oct. 2026. trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_117390649505706640. Accessed 9 Oct. 2026.
- Chicago: Donald J. Trump, "The Radical Left is upset with the fact that I am taking...," Truth Social, October 5, 2026, archived at trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_117390649505706640.

## For agents

- Site overview: https://trump.fm/llms.txt
- API specification: https://trump.fm/openapi.json
- MCP server: https://trump.fm/mcp (search and fetch tools, no auth)
- This post as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/posts/ts_117390649505706640
- Analysis as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/analysis/ts_117390649505706640
- All citation formats: https://trump.fm/api/cite/ts_117390649505706640
- Same day: https://trump.fm/date/2026-10-05
- The record alone, without the analysis: https://trump.fm/post/ts_117390649505706640.md?analysis=false

_Markdown view of a trump.fm page. Post, analysis, date, feed, contradictions, search and about pages answer in markdown at their URL with `.md` appended (`/index.md` for the home page), or when sent `Accept: text/markdown`._