“Good job you did! Great job,” President Donald Trump says to U.S. Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks in a 30-second commercial that has reached thousands of Iowans on the radio or social media platforms over the past month.

The three-term Republican did not place the ads through her campaign committee, which had accumulated more than $2.6 million cash on hand as of September 30.

Instead, Miller-Meeks—considered one of the country’s most vulnerable House Republicans—has used taxpayer funds to share Trump’s praise with Iowans.

Bleeding Heartland’s review of data from Facebook’s ad library and Federal Communications Commission files suggest that Miller-Meeks’ Congressional office has spent at least $10,000 to run this spot. (Several other taxpayer-funded radio ads have also been in rotation this fall.)

If the 2024 campaign is any indication, Miller-Meeks may spend much more from her Congressional office budget in the coming months, as she seeks to shore up her appeal with conservatives before another competitive primary election in Iowa’s first district.

“CONGRESSWOMAN MILLER-MEEKS, DELIVERING FOR IOWA!”

Trump gave Miller-Meeks his “Complete and Total Endorsement” in early November, calling her an “incredibly strong advocate” for her district and assuring his Truth Social followers, “SHE WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN!”

But these ads don’t quote from that post.

The House Communications Standards Commission must approve scripts and images before House members can use official funds (also known as franking funds) to reach constituents through postal mail, electronic or digital communications, or radio or television advertising. House rules require such communications to be “related to official business.” Campaign content, electioneering, and “political or personal business” is not permitted.

So when seeking the commission’s approval for this ad, Miller-Meeks’ office kept the focus on how she is supposedly “Delivering for Iowa.” The Trump remarks are taken from an official White House event on February 5, when the president was thanking a long list of Republicans on hand as he signed an executive order banning transgender athletes from women and girls’ sports. (I’ve cued up this video to the right place.)

Here’s how the ads looked on Facebook and Instagram.

According to Facebook’s ad library, “Delivering for Iowa” ran on Facebook and Instagram from November 13 to December 1, with an estimated spend between $3,500 and $4,000. The ad generated between 150,000 and 175,000 impressions (defined as “The number of times an ad was on a screen, which may include multiple views by the same people”).

Here is what users would see if they played the 30-second video.

Annotated transcript:

Footage of President Trump saying, “Mariannette Miller-Meeks. [Applause] Good job you did. Great job!” [words on screen “Mariannette Miller-Meeks … great job!”]

Male voice-over: Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks. [footage of Miller-Meeks being interviewed, words on screen “Mariannette Miller-Meeks Congresswoman”]

A veteran who served our nation. [photo of a young Miller-Meeks, words on screen “VETERAN Mariannette Miller-Meeks”]

A doctor who cares for our communities. [photo of Miller-Meeks in a white doctor’s coat, words on screen “DOCTOR Mariannette Miller-Meeks”]

A mother who knows the challenges families face. [photo of Miller-Meeks speaking to classroom of kids, words on screen “MOTHER Mariannette Miller-Meeks”]

In Congress, she’s fighting side by side with President Trump [photo of U.S. Capitol, side by side photos of Trump and Miller-Meeks speaking, words on screen “Mariannette Miller-Meeks FIGHTING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP”]

To protect our veterans, bring jobs back to America, and secure a stronger safer future for everyone. [Photos of Miller-Meeks with a veteran, at a job site, with law enforcement; headlines from various news stories]

Congresswoman Miller-Meeks, delivering for Iowa!

Paid for by official funds authorized by the House of Representatives.

To be clear: the House Communications Standards Commission approved this ad as appropriate for official funds. Miller-Meeks’ staff went through the same process used when placing many other Facebook ads in 2025. (Her office has spent between $25,000 and $30,000 on Meta advertising at this writing.)

From where I’m sitting, this video looks and feels much more like a campaign ad than many other social media ads touting the incumbent’s work in Congress. The main difference between this and a 30-second commercial you might see shortly before an election is the message appearing in small print near the bottom of the screen in the closing seconds (“paid for by office funds authorized by the U.S. House of Representatives”).

The day after this spot stopped running on Facebook and Instagram, an audio version with the same script popped up on some Iowa radio stations.

RADIO ADS WORTH TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

Miller-Meeks used official funds to run radio ads in July and August highlighting various aspects of the tax and spending legislation Republicans called the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” In late October, she received permission to use taxpayer funds for several other radio ads. On focused on the federal government shutdown, encouraging those impacted to call her office for help. Others highlighted border security and the incumbent’s support for law enforcement.

There was also a radio version of “Delivering for Iowa,” which began running on December 2 on WHO Radio in Des Moines, an influential conservative AM station. I recorded this audio on December 5.

The House of Representatives has not yet published reports on members’ office budgets during the third and fourth quarters of 2025, so I can’t see the total amount of taxpayer money being spent on radio ads promoting Miller-Meeks.

I can confirm that Miller-Meeks is spending much more on that format than she did over the summer. Invoices filed with the Federal Communications Commission show that ads about the budget reconciliation measure ran from August 11 through August 22, at a cost of $1,286 for spots on WHO Radio.

More recent FCC invoices show Miller-Meeks’ office spent $5,790 for WHO daytime ads from December 2 through December 15. The invoices don’t indicate which script is on the air, but the only spot I’ve heard on the station is the one beginning with Trump’s voice: “Mariannette Miller-Meeks. Good job you did! Great job.” That makes sense, since WHO reaches mostly conservative Iowans, who probably think highly of Trump.

Other radio ad buys followed a similar pattern. Miller-Meeks’ office paid $676 for spots on WMT-AM (a conservative talk radio station based in Cedar Rapids) in August, but ordered $2,670 in ads on WMT from November 13 through November 21 and another $2,590 for ads to run from December 2 through December 15.

The escalating ad buys aren’t limited to talk radio. Miller-Meeks’ office spent $1,446 to advertise on WLLR (an FM station with a modern country music format in Davenport) in August. Spending on WLLR totaled $4,260 in November and $3,600 in December.

To reach more Iowans in the Quad Cities area, Miller-Meeks’ office spent $1,800 to advertise on KMXG FM in November and another $1,600 for ads in December. KMXG is commonly known as Mix 96 but follows a holiday music format at this time of year.

Classic rock fans in the Cedar Rapids listening area may have heard Miller-Meeks ads on KKRQ, commonly known as 100.7 The Fox. Invoices show expenditures of $1,440 on KKRQ ads in November and $1,200 for December.

That may not be a complete list of radio stations now running promotional material “paid for by official funds authorized by the House of Representatives.”

While I can’t confirm which of the approved ad scripts (Trump praise, border security, “backing the blue”) aired on each station, the FCC invoices leave no doubt: taxpayers covered Miller-Meeks radio ads worth at least $28,000 during calendar year 2025.

WHY IT MATTERS

Incumbents have benefited from the franking privilege for centuries. So who cares if Miller-Meeks allocates part of her office budget to social media or radio advertising? As mentioned above, the House Communications Standards Commission approved all of these scripts. The ads don’t count as “electioneering” because they don’t expressly urge listeners to vote for Miller-Meeks.

Although most members of Congress use franking funds to improve their image, there’s a big difference between an ad putting the incumbent in a favorable light and one that is practically a campaign commercial.

If taxpayers are funding an ad, the message should have some plausible benefit to the public as well as to the politician. Here’s an example from Iowa’s second district. Representative Ashley Hinson received approval in May to run two radio ads using official funds.

This is Congresswoman Ashley Hinson. Every day, we help seniors access Medicare and Social Security benefits. We arrange tours of our nation’s capital for Iowa families. And ensure Iowa’s veterans are getting the care they deserve.

Please call my office at 319-364-2288, and we will go to work for you right away.
This is Ashley Hinson. Paid for by official funds authorized by House of Representatives.

A similar ad focused on veterans:

This is Congresswoman Ashley Hinson. Every day, my office helps veterans access the care and benefits they deserve at the VA. 

If you are a veteran who is experiencing issues accessing their benefits or health care, please call my office at 319-364-2288. We will go to work for you right away.

Thank you to all of Iowa’s veterans for your service. Paid for by official funds authorized by House of Representatives. 

Obviously, those ads raised Hinson’s name ID and created positive associations with her work in Congress. At the same time, listeners could learn something useful: how to obtain constituent services.

In contrast, no one but Miller-Meeks gains from hearing Trump say to her, “Great job!”

And while all of the Iowans in Congress genuflect to the president on a regular basis, Miller-Meeks has the strongest incentive to shore up her standing with the MAGA contingent.

“SHE’S JUST ROUNDLY DISLIKED”

Miller-Meeks didn’t endorse Trump before the 2024 caucuses and has been desperate to prove her loyalty ever since he returned to the White House. The results can be painful to watch. In March, she scurried to get close to the president following his address to a joint session of Congress, then repeatedly declared she was “proud to personally greet” him.

Her YouTube “shorts” feed contains a six-second video of Trump from May, a couple of days before House Republicans approved the budget reconciliation bill. The president is walking down a hallway, then turns to give Miller-Meeks a thumbs up: “You’re looking good? I think so.” She shared the clip with the comment, “‘Good job!’ Thank you President Trump for the kind words”—adding flag and fist emojis for extra cringe.

Why is Miller-Meeks so intent on publicizing her allegiance to Trump? She’ll face David Pautsch in the June 2026 primary to represent Iowa’s first district. She barely managed 56 percent of the vote against him in 2024.

Immediately after Trump endorsed Miller-Meeks, Pautsch told me he needed time to think about his race. But in a November 11 telephone interview, he sounded more committed to running for Congress than ever. He told me, “If you want to have a fun time, just go around asking people what they think of Miller-Meeks.”

“She’s just roundly disliked,” Pautsch said. “So no amount of endorsements are going to salvage her on that one. The grassroots just simply has a high degree of contempt for her.”

I asked Pautsch—a hard-core MAGA Republican and 2020 election denier—why he thought Trump backed his opponent. He characterized it as “an unprincipled thing,” and noted the president endorsed about 50 other Republicans in Truth Social posts on the same day. “Let’s conserve a bunch of people with an R behind their name. Who cares what they believe? Who cares whether they’re MAGA? We just need a bunch of Rs. And that’s the way these people think.” They don’t think about principle or message, “they only think about money money money money money money money.”

That’s how you end up with “a bunch of weak people in Congress who aren’t willing to stand up for anything.” From Pautsch’s perspective, “Donald Trump did himself no favor in doing such an unprincipled thing.” But in politics, people do what’s “expedient” and what they think will help them short-term.

Party insiders worry about electability, “And the first thing they look at is money,” Pautsch told me. He acknowledged he’s been an “underachiever” in the fundraising department—his campaign reported a little less than $9,000 cash on hand as of September 30. But “The fact of the matter is you don’t need much money to run this race.”

Whereas Pautsch got into the last campaign relatively late, only about six months before the primary, he’s been all over the district this year. He estimated he’s already met more than 12,000 people—at county fairs, parades, other events, or just walking around a town square introducing himself. He said his team has given out more than 30,000 of his campaign’s 3×5 cards.

“I’m sure she’d be a good neighbor. But she’s a horrible congresswoman,” he said of his opponent.

I see Miller-Meeks as strongly favored to win the IA-01 primary, in part because she and her allies will be able to outspend Pautsch by a factor of ten or more. And after a break for Christmas and New Year’s, I expect the incumbent to allocate six figures from her Congressional office budget on radio, social media, and direct mail, like she did in 2024.

Don’t be surprised to see more of your tax dollars used to spread the word that Donald Trump thinks Miller-Meeks is doing a “great job.”