Vice President JD Vance delivered a jaw dropping defense of President Donald Trump’s recent taxpayer funded propaganda ads, telling a reporter there was nothing especially unusual about the government spending public money to promote its message. His explanation leaned heavily on presenting the ads as ordinary public communication.

The ad at the center of the controversy is described as one of a reported series financed with money funneled away from the Department of Homeland Security. It features black and white footage of Trump promising to dismantle the conspiratorial “deep state.”

Vance responded by reaching back to the Obama administration and its promotion of the Affordable Care Act. He argued that governments have historically used taxpayer money to explain their actions to the public.

“If you look historically—go back to the Obama administration with the Affordable Care Act, you have the people’s government using tax dollars to advertise about what the government is doing,” Vance said.

That comparison formed the backbone of Vance’s defense. Rather than distinguish between advertising about a government program and footage promoting Trump’s pledge to dismantle the “deep state,” he described both as examples of the government communicating with the country.

Vance then tied that government messaging to what he called honesty with the public. His answer treated getting the administration’s preferred story in front of Americans as a basic part of explaining what officials are doing.

“You have to be honest with the American people about what you’re doing, about what’s going on, and part of that is getting out there and telling the message. So I don’t think there’s anything unusual or unorthodox about it.”

That is quite a sales pitch for taxpayer funded messaging featuring Trump and one of his favorite conspiratorial targets. Vance’s defense effectively cast the ad as a straightforward public information effort, despite its focus on Trump promising to crush the supposed “deep state.”

Vance also insisted the administration was not using the advertising to promote any particular political contender. “It’s not like we’re advocating for a particular candidate,” Vance added.

Instead, he offered a much broader and sunnier description of the purpose behind the ads. “We’re trying to tell a story, I think, about how great the United States of America is.”

That description sits awkwardly beside the content of the ad itself as presented in the report. The featured footage does not merely offer a general celebration of the country, but shows Trump pledging to dismantle a conspiratorial enemy he calls the “deep state.”

Vance’s answer therefore moved between several defenses of the spending. He called government advertising historically familiar, presented administration messaging as a matter of public honesty, denied that it advocated for a candidate, and characterized it as storytelling about American greatness.

The source of the funding remains central to the criticism. The reported series uses money funneled away from the Department of Homeland Security, while placing Trump and his political message directly before the public in footage financed by taxpayers.

Vance nevertheless maintained that there was nothing “unusual or unorthodox” about the arrangement. His reasoning rested on the claim that the government has a legitimate role in advertising what it is doing and telling Americans its chosen message.

The result was a remarkably blunt defense of government funded promotion centered on Trump. Vance may call it a story about national greatness, but the ad described in the report shows Trump pushing his “deep state” crusade with taxpayers footing the bill.

WATCH BELOW: