By the next morning, similar statements appeared on other agency websites, each assigning blame to “radical” Democrats. HUD defended the banner, claiming it criticized an ideology rather than a political party or candidate. Democrats, however, said the post represented a misuse of federal communication channels.
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development Official Site, October 1, 2025
The controversy surrounding the pop-ups has drawn new attention to the Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939 that limits partisan political advocacy by federal employees. The act was established to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan manner, to protect employees from political coercion, and to guarantee that public officials are promoted based on merit rather than party affiliation.
While the Hatch Act does not explicitly address digital communications, it prohibits using taxpayer-funded platforms for political messaging. Legal experts say the shutdown pop-up statements may not directly violate the law—since they did not advocate for or against a candidate—but they likely conflict with its broader purpose. Donald Sherman, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, stated that the posts “certainly violate the spirit of that law.”
As the shutdown continued, lawmakers reported that some federal employees’ automatic email replies had been altered without their consent. Employees from the Department of Education disclosed having initially used a nonpartisan out-of-office email template, but later realized that the wording of their email had been changed to blame Democrats for the shutdown. One such employee was frustrated that their name was being attached to words that were not their own, stating, “They went in and manipulated my out-of-office reply. I guess they’re now making us all guilty of violating the Hatch Act.”. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland condemned the changes, calling them “a perversion of government services into instruments of partisan propaganda.” He warned that politicizing standard communication channels undermines public trust in federal institutions.
Republicans defended the messages, arguing that Democrats forced the shutdown by refusing to fund the budget proposal. They maintained that the statements were factual explanations of the impasse and reflected the administration’s position that it wanted to “keep the government open for the American people.” Democrats countered that the administration’s messaging used public funds for partisan purposes, violating a federal spending provision that bans the use of appropriated funds for “publicity or propaganda” designed to influence legislation.
The pop-up dispute spotlights broader questions about how government agencies communicate during political crises. The Hatch Act was written long before the internet era, yet its core intent—to keep government functions nonpartisan—remains central to public accountability. Even if the recent messages do not result in legal penalties, the episode demonstrates how easily partisan conflict can spill into the official operations of nonpartisan government agencies.
The Office of Special Counsel, which enforces the Hatch Act, has not announced any investigation into the matter. Future incidents will likely continue testing the boundaries between transparency and advocacy, forcing agencies to navigate the difficult line between informing the public and advancing political narratives.
Asiya Siddiqui is a student at the University of California, Berkeley, majoring in Economics and minoring in Public Policy.
When Federal Websites Get Political: The Hatch Act in the Digital Age was originally published by the Alliance for Civic Engagement.
A June 2025 Facebook post from the White House. White House Facebook accountThe post is not an outlier.
In the Trump administration, White House social media posts often blur the lines between politics and entertainment, and between reality and illusion.
The White House has released AI images of Trump as the pope, as Superman and as a Star Wars Jedi, ready to do battle with “Radical Left Lunatics” who would bring “Murderers, Drug Lords … & well-known MS-13 Gang Members” into the country.
Most recently, on the weekend of the No Kings protests, both Trump and the White House released a video of the president wearing a crown and piloting a fighter jet, from which he dispenses feces onto a crowd of protesters below.
Underpinning it all is a calculated political strategy: an appeal to Trump’s political base – largely white, working-class, rural or small-town, evangelical and culturally conservative.
As scholars who study communication in politics and the media, we believe the White House’s rhetoric and style is part of a broader global change often found in countries experiencing increased polarization and democratic backsliding.
Trump posted a video on the weekend of the No Kings protests of him dropping feces on a crowd of protesters.In the past, national leaders generally favored a professional tone, whether on social or traditional media. Their language was neutral and polished, laced with political jargon.
While populist political communication has become more common along with the proliferation of social media, the communication norms are further altered in Trump White House social media posts.
They are partisan, theatrical and exaggerated. Their tone is almost circuslike. The process of governing is portrayed as a reality TV show, in which political roles are performed with little regard for real-world consequences. Vivid color schemes and stylized imagery convert political messaging into visual spectacle. The language is colloquial, down-to-earth.
Just as other influencers in a variety of domains might create an emotional bond by tailoring social media messages, content, products and services to the needs and likes of individual customers, the White House tailors its content to the beliefs, language and worldview of Trump’s political base.
In doing so, the White House echoes a broad, growing trend in political communication, portraying Trump as “a champion of the people” and using direct and informal communication that appeals to fear and resentment.
Trump White House social media makes no effort to promote social unity or constructive dialogue, or reduce polarization – and often heightens it. Undocumented immigrants, for example, are often portrayed as inherently evil. White House social media amplifies dramatic, emotionally charged content.
In one video, Trump recites a poem about a kind woman who takes in a snake, a stand-in for an immigrant who in reality is a dangerous serpent. “Instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite,” Trump recites.
While some scholars have called the White House social media style “amateurish,” that hasn’t resulted in change.
The lack of response to negative feedback is partially explained by the strategic goal of these communications: to appeal to the frustrations of Trump’s deeply disaffected political base, which seems to revel in the White House social media style.
Scholars identify a large number of these voters as “the precariat,” a group whose once-stable, union-protected jobs have been outsourced or replaced with low-wage, insecure service work. These workers, many former Democrats, can no longer count on a regular paycheck, benefits or work they can identify with.
As a result, they are more likely to support political candidates whom they believe will respond to their economic instability.
In addition, many of these voters blame a breakdown in what they perceive as the racial pecking order for a loss of social status, especially when compared with more highly educated workers. Many of these workers distrust the media and other elite institutions they feel have failed them. Research shows that they are highly receptive to messages that confirm their grievances and that many regard Trump as their champion.
Trump and the White House social media play to this audience.
On social media, the president is free to violate norms that anger his critics but have little effect on his supporters, who view the current political system as flawed. One example: A White House Valentine’s Day communication that said “Roses are red, violets are blue, come here illegally, and we’ll deport you.”
In addition, Trump and the White House social media use the president’s status as a celebrity, coupled with comedy and spectacle, to immunize the administration from fallout, even among some of its critics.
Trump’s exaggerated gestures, over-the-top language, his lampooning of opponents and his use of caricature to ridicule whole categories of people – including Democrats, the disabled, Muslims, Mexicans and women – is read by his political base as a playful and entertaining take down of political correctness. It may form a sturdy pillar of his support.
But prioritizing entertainment over facts has long-term significance.
Trump’s communication strategies are already setting a global precedent, encouraging other politicians to adopt similar theatrical and polarizing tactics that distort or deny facts.
These methods may energize some audiences but risk alienating others. Informed political engagement is reduced, and democratic backsliding is increasingly a reality.
Although the communication style of the White House is playful and irreverent, it has a serious goal: the diffusion of ideological messages whose intent is to create a sense of strength and righteousness among its supporters.
In simple terms, this is propaganda designed to persuade citizens that the government is strong, its enemies evil and that fellow citizens – “real Americans” – think the same way.
Scholars observe that the White House projection of the often comical images of authority echoes the visual style of authoritarian governments. Both seek to be seen as in control of the social and political order and thereby to discourage dissent.
The chief difference between the two is that in a deeply polarized democracy such as the U.S., citizens interpret these displays of authority in sharply different ways: They build opposition among Trump opponents but support among supporters.
The rising intolerance that results erodes social cohesion, undermines support for democratic norms and weakens trust in institutions. And that opens the door to democratic backsliding.
Andrew Rojecki is a professor of communication at the University of Illinois Chicago.
Tanja Aitamurto is an associate professor of communication at the University of Illinois Chicago.
King, Pope, Jedi, Superman: Trump’s Social Media Images Exclusively Target His Base and Try To Blur Political Reality was originally published by The Conversation and is republished with permission.
