Trump, the Elephant in the Room, Goes Unmentioned in Most Republican Ads

By the Editorial Team · Thursday, October 22, 2026

Republican candidates have sharply reduced mentions of former President Donald Trump in their midterm TV ads, despite his ongoing campaign rallies, spending less than 1% of their ad budgets on references to him compared to 55% during the primaries. This shift reflects concerns over Trump’s low approval ratings in key battleground states, prompting GOP hopefuls to distance themselves from him to attract moderate voters while Democrats increase attacks linking Republicans to Trump’s unpopular policies.

In the lead-up to the midterm elections, Republican candidates have largely avoided mentioning former President Donald Trump in their television advertisements, diverging sharply from their approach during the primary season. Analysis of ad spending and transcripts from Sept. 9 through Oct. 17 shows that less than 1% of Republican television ad dollars for House and Senate races have included Trump’s name, even as he continues to maintain a presence at campaign rallies urging voters to “pretend I’m on the ballot.”

This cautious approach by Republicans contrasts with the vocal prominence Trump held in the primaries, when about 55% of their ad spending mentioned him. The shift reflects President Trump’s diminished approval ratings, which hover in the 30% range, making explicit connections potentially harmful in competitive battleground states. Political analysts note that with Trump’s standing so low, GOP candidates appear to be distancing themselves to appeal to a broader electorate.

Senators and candidates in key races have taken nuanced approaches to referencing Trump. Alaska Republican Senator Dan Sullivan, seeking re-election, mentioned his vote to compel the Justice Department to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, positioning himself as taking a stand associated with Trump’s administration. Meanwhile, Michigan’s Republican Senate nominee, former Representative Mike Rogers, aired ads criticizing Trump’s trade policies, calling for an end to the tariff dispute with Canada.

Democrats, for their part, have escalated their attacks on Trump’s policies in the final weeks before Election Day, allocating roughly 20% of their ad budgets to spots that reference the former president. These ads often blame Trump’s agenda for issues such as soaring gas prices and healthcare cuts, especially in swing states that Trump either narrowly won or lost in 2024, such as Georgia, Michigan, Maine, and New Hampshire.

For example, in Georgia, allies of Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff aired an ad linking his Republican challenger, Mike Collins, to Trump’s policies, suggesting voters cannot afford to elect someone aligned with the former president. Collins has countered by attributing higher energy costs to the Biden administration’s environmental rules.

The broader strategic divergence between the parties underscores a key dynamic of the current election cycle. Democrats aim to associate Republican candidates with Trump’s unpopular policies, while Republicans seek to avoid alienating moderate voters by minimizing explicit ties to him. This stands in contrast to the primaries, where voter loyalty to Trump played a decisive role and candidates competed to demonstrate allegiance.

There are exceptions, however. Iowa Democratic Senate nominee Josh Turek acknowledged Trump in his advertising, offering to work with him on immigration reform, reflecting Trump’s sustained popularity in that state. Conversely, his Republican opponent, Ashley Hinson, who once branded herself as Trump’s “top ally in the United States Senate,” now emphasizes her ability to legislate independently irrespective of who holds the presidency.

As the midterms approach, the evolving role of Trump in campaign messaging highlights the balancing act Republican candidates face between energizing their base and appealing to the broader electorate in tightly contested races.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.