Four days before the US midterms, there’s a number worth sitting with: $183 million.

That’s how much Republicans have spent, by an Associated Press analysis of AdImpact data, on TV ads attacking Democrats over transgender issues this cycle. The ad-tracking firm counted about 217,000 spots nationwide through October 25.

That’s more than the last big election. At the same point before the 2024 general election, Republicans had spent $151 million on similar ads, AP reports.

And yet the voters on the receiving end mostly say this isn’t what they’re voting on.

Where the money went

The spending isn’t spread evenly. It’s piled into a handful of races, according to the AP’s AdImpact figures:

  • Texas Senate: an estimated $58 million for more than 50,000 airings. One ad against Democrat James Talarico, from a Texas PAC supporting Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton, ran nearly 17,000 times, at a cost of more than $23 million.
  • Ohio: attacks on Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown have cost nearly $26 million. Brown’s campaign called the ads a “total lie” and a distraction from economic issues.
  • Kansas: Republican trans-focused ads aired 7,000 times, at a cost of nearly $7 million.
  • South Carolina: more than $5 million.

Democrats have spent roughly $11 million on transgender-related ads, AP says, most of it defending themselves against the attacks.

The message on the campaign trail matches the airwaves. At a rally in Mississippi, President Donald Trump said Democrats “promote the transgender mutilization of your children,” AP reports.

What voters actually say

Here’s the gap. An AP-NORC poll of 1,119 adults, fielded October 8 to 12, asked what matters most to people’s votes:

  • 85% said the economy is one of the most important issues
  • 84% said the cost of living
  • 12% said transgender issues

Republican strategists don’t see that as a contradiction. Pollster Chris Wilson told AP that voters “can use a candidate’s position on it as a proxy for their broader values and judgment.” He also conceded the limits of the data: whether the ads are persuading people or just reinforcing existing views are “two very different things, and $100 million in spending doesn’t tell us which is happening.”

So the honest answer to “do these ads work?” is: nobody can say yet. Tuesday night will give a few clues, especially in Texas and Ohio.

Why it matters even if they don’t “work”

Trans people make up a small share of the US population. When one side spends nine figures on 217,000 TV spots casting them as a threat, it lands somewhere, whatever the election result.

It lands on trans adults scrolling past the same 30-second spot for the fifth time in an evening. On parents of trans kids. On the advocacy groups whose names get borrowed: earlier this week we reported on fake “trans student” mailers in Texas made to look like they came from a real trans organisation, which said it had nothing to do with them.

None of that is a reason to tune out. It’s a reason to know exactly what’s on your ballot and who’s paying for what you see.

Before Tuesday: a quick checklist

  • Know your ballot. Voters in seven states also decide eight LGBTQ+-related measures on trans students, youth healthcare, marriage and equal protection. Our state-by-state guide explains which way is which.
  • Check the “paid for by” line. Every TV ad carries one. If a mailer or text claims to come from an LGBTQ+ group, check that group’s own channels before sharing.
  • Look past the headline claim. In Ohio, AP reports that PolitiFact rated one Senate Leadership Fund ad as false. Fact-checkers are busy this week; use them.
  • Protect your peace. Muting, skipping and logging off until Wednesday is allowed. So is voting first and doom-scrolling never.

What happens next

Polls close on Tuesday, November 3. Results in close Senate races can take days. We’ll be watching the races where the trans-focused spending was heaviest, the eight ballot measures, and what new majorities say about trans rights once the ads stop running.

Whatever happens, one thing is already clear from the numbers: the money was spent on fear, and the voters were thinking about rent.