By: Ebenezer Adugyamfi & Emmanuel Ayiku for GhanaianNewsCanada
23 OCTOBER 2026
U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly defended Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy over a controversial campaign advertisement targeting his Democratic opponent, Amy Acton, urging him to keep the advertisement on air despite growing criticism from members of his own party.
The advertisement, which features Acton’s estranged mother, Donna Arthur, has triggered a political dispute in Ohio because of its references to the Democratic candidate’s personal history, including allegations of sexual abuse during her childhood.
Trump has described the advertisement as powerful and argued that voters should be allowed to hear what Acton’s mother has to say. His intervention has placed him at odds with several prominent Republicans who have called on Ramaswamy to withdraw the advertisement.
The controversy has also raised questions about the use of deeply personal family disputes and childhood trauma in political campaigning, particularly in a closely watched race to become Ohio’s next governor.
Trump tells Ramaswamy to keep the advertisement running
In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump praised Ramaswamy’s advertisement and advised him not to remove it, dismissing criticism that the campaign had crossed a line.
The president also criticised Ohio’s Republican Governor Mike DeWine after DeWine urged Ramaswamy to take the advertisement down. Trump accused DeWine of disloyalty to the Republican Party, escalating the disagreement within the party over the campaign strategy.
Trump had initially told reporters that he knew little about the circumstances behind the strained relationship between Acton and her mother. However, he subsequently defended the advertisement, arguing that a candidate’s mother publicly criticising her daughter was relevant to the political debate.
The president’s position has drawn attention because the dispute is not limited to the political differences between Acton and Ramaswamy. It also involves allegations of childhood sexual abuse that Acton has publicly discussed and the circumstances surrounding her separation from her mother.
What is in the controversial advertisement?
The advertisement features Donna Arthur criticising her daughter and questioning her credibility. Arthur calls Acton a liar and urges Ohio voters not to support her gubernatorial campaign.
The advertisement challenges Acton’s account of her childhood, including her descriptions of homelessness and sexual abuse involving her stepfather.
Acton has said she has not seen her mother since 1978, when she was approximately 12 years old. According to her account, she and her brother were removed from their mother’s custody after authorities became involved in allegations of abuse.
Acton’s stepfather, who was married to her mother, faced a criminal rape charge involving the child. He left the area while the case was pending and died in 2004 without the case going to trial, according to reports detailing the family’s history.
The allegations and the circumstances surrounding the case have become central to the public debate over the advertisement. Acton’s supporters argue that using her estranged mother to attack her credibility ignores the background to their separation and turns a painful childhood experience into a campaign weapon.
The advertisement does not resolve the underlying allegations. Rather, it presents the mother’s criticism of Acton as part of a political argument against the Democratic candidate.
Acton condemns the campaign tactic
Acton has criticised Ramaswamy’s decision to publicise the dispute, describing the advertisement as an unacceptable attack that brings painful experiences from her childhood into the gubernatorial contest.
She has spoken publicly about experiencing physical and sexual abuse as a child and about the intervention of child protection authorities that resulted in her and her brother being removed from their mother’s custody.
Her brother, Philip Stearns, has also defended her account and criticised the advertisement, arguing that the campaign is exploiting the abuse allegations for political purposes.
Acton’s campaign has described the advertisement as despicable, maintaining that the decision to feature her estranged mother is intended to damage her reputation rather than provide voters with a meaningful discussion of policy.
The dispute has therefore expanded beyond an ordinary exchange of campaign accusations, drawing attention to the responsibilities candidates face when discussing opponents’ families and personal histories.
Senior Republicans distance themselves from the advertisement
Although Trump and Vice President JD Vance have defended Ramaswamy, several other Republicans have expressed reservations about the advertisement.
DeWine has urged the gubernatorial candidate to remove it, saying he believes it is wrong to use the material in a political campaign. Drawing on his experience as a former prosecutor and state attorney general, DeWine has spoken about the seriousness of sexual abuse cases and the impact they can have on victims.
Republican Senator Jon Husted, who is running for re-election to the U.S. Senate, has said he would not have run the advertisement.
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has also indicated that he probably would not have used such an advertisement, although he acknowledged that individual candidates make their own campaign decisions.
Other Republican figures have criticised the campaign’s approach, highlighting the unusual divisions the advertisement has created within the party.
Vance, however, has pushed back against Republicans criticising Ramaswamy. During a campaign appearance, the vice president said he was frustrated that some Republicans were focusing on the advertisement rather than what he described as the policy positions of Democratic candidates.
The disagreement illustrates the competing considerations within the Republican Party: defending a candidate’s campaign decisions and maintaining party unity on one hand, while responding to concerns about the content and tone of political advertising on the other.
Ramaswamy campaign commits millions of dollars to the ad
Ramaswamy’s campaign has indicated that it plans to spend approximately US$4 million promoting the advertisement, signalling that the controversy is a significant part of its campaign strategy.
The advertisement has attracted widespread attention as the two candidates compete to replace DeWine, who is leaving office because of term limits.
Polling reported before the advertisement emerged showed Acton ahead of Ramaswamy in the Ohio gubernatorial contest. A Marist poll conducted from October 15 to 18 placed Acton at 50 per cent among likely voters, compared with 43 per cent for Ramaswamy.
Those figures reflect voter preferences before the advertisement became a major public controversy. Its eventual effect on the race remains uncertain, and the attention it has generated does not by itself establish whether it will benefit or harm either candidate.
The campaign’s decision to continue promoting the advertisement despite criticism from prominent Republicans suggests that Ramaswamy is prepared to maintain his approach amid the growing backlash.
A wider debate over political campaigning
The controversy has renewed debate about the boundaries of political advertising in the United States, particularly when campaigns use family relationships, allegations of abuse and other deeply personal experiences to challenge an opponent’s character.
Political campaigns routinely examine candidates’ records, public statements and past decisions. However, the use of sensitive personal experiences can generate a different set of concerns, especially when the material involves allegations of abuse during childhood.
Critics of the advertisement argue that voters should be able to assess candidates on their policies, leadership records and public conduct without personal trauma being used as a political weapon.
Those defending the advertisement have emphasised the importance of allowing voters to hear criticism of a candidate, including criticism from family members. The dispute has consequently become part of a broader argument about free political expression, campaign tactics and the responsibilities of candidates during an election.
The disagreement also demonstrates that the controversy is not confined to Democrats criticising a Republican opponent. Some of the strongest objections have come from Republicans who support their party’s candidates but disagree with the decision to use this particular advertisement.
What happens next?
The advertisement remains a source of political tension as Ohio’s gubernatorial campaign continues. Trump has urged Ramaswamy to keep it on air, while DeWine and other Republicans have called for its removal or expressed opposition to its use.
Acton and her campaign continue to challenge the advertisement’s portrayal of her family history, while Ramaswamy’s campaign has committed substantial resources to promoting it.
Whether the controversy changes voter attitudes will become clearer as the campaign progresses and further polling becomes available.
For now, the dispute has placed a deeply personal family history at the centre of Ohio’s gubernatorial race and exposed divisions among Republicans over how far a candidate should go when attacking a political opponent.
The central question is no longer simply whether the advertisement attracts attention, but how voters will judge a campaign strategy that brings allegations of childhood abuse and a longstanding family estrangement into a contest for public office.
