You couldn't escape it. If you watched a single NFL game or a NASCAR race in the fall of 2024, you saw the flickering images of a "radical" agenda and heard the narrator's voice dropping that now-famous line. It’s the ad that basically everyone remembers from the home stretch of the campaign. The one where Donald Trump slammed Kamala Harris over taxpayer-funded surgeries for prisoners and undocumented immigrants.
"Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you."
It’s a brutal kicker. Honestly, even Democratic strategists later admitted it was one of the most effective 30-second spots in modern political history. But what was actually in those ads? Did she really say that? Politics is usually a game of "he-said, she-said," but this specific controversy was rooted in a very real, very specific paper trail from Harris’s past.
The Ad That Changed Everything
The Trump campaign didn't just run this once. They flooded the airwaves. We're talking $19 million in just two weeks across every single swing state. The "Kamala is for they/them" ad series wasn't just some random attack; it was a targeted strike on Harris’s 2020 primary record.
At its core, the ad used a clip from a 2019 interview Harris gave to the National Center for Transgender Equality. In that video, she was asked if she would use executive authority to ensure that transition-related care—including surgery—was available to people in federal custody.
She said yes.
Specifically, she noted that she "made sure they changed the policy in the state of California" so that transgender inmates had access to the care they needed. It wasn't a "deepfake" or a fabrication. It was a real policy stance she took when she was trying to win over the progressive base of the Democratic party years ago.
🔗 Read more: Elecciones en Honduras 2025: ¿Quién va ganando realmente según los últimos datos?
Why It Hit So Hard
Political ads usually just fade into the background. This one didn't. Why?
Basically, it tapped into a specific cultural anxiety. The Trump team didn't just focus on the policy; they focused on the money. By highlighting "taxpayer-funded" procedures, they moved the conversation from a debate about civil rights to a debate about how your paycheck is being spent.
The Rodney Quine Case
One version of the ad featured Rodney Quine (now Shiloh Quine), a convicted murderer. Quine became the first inmate in California to receive state-funded gender reassignment surgery in 2017.
At the time, Harris was the state's Attorney General. While her office initially fought the request in court—which is something her supporters often point out—she eventually helped facilitate the settlement that allowed the surgery to happen. To the Trump campaign, this was the ultimate "gotcha" moment. They portrayed it as Harris prioritizing the "wants" of criminals over the needs of "regular" Americans.
Was it Actually True?
Sorta. It’s complicated.
It is 100% true that Kamala Harris expressed support for these policies in a 2019 ACLU questionnaire and in the 2019 interview mentioned above. There’s no getting around that. However, the 2024 Harris campaign tried to distance itself from those old comments. Her team told reporters that she wasn't "running on" that platform anymore.
💡 You might also like: Trump Approval Rating State Map: Why the Red-Blue Divide is Moving
But in politics, if you don't define yourself, your opponent will do it for you. Because Harris never explicitly sat down and explained why her view had changed (or if it even had), the Trump ads filled the silence.
The "Illegal Aliens" Claim
Trump also claimed during the September debate that Harris wanted "transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison."
While that sounds like a wild exaggeration, it actually stems from that same 2019 ACLU questionnaire. The question specifically asked about "immigrant detention." Harris had checked the "yes" box, indicating she supported providing comprehensive gender-affirming care to those in immigration custody.
So, while the phrase "transgender operations on illegal aliens" was framed for maximum shock value, it wasn't a total invention. It was a literal interpretation of a policy stance she had put in writing.
The Impact on the Ground
Data from the Democratic super PAC Future Forward actually showed this was the single most effective ad Trump ran. It shifted the needle by about 2.7 percentage points among viewers. That might not sound like much, but in an election decided by tens of thousands of votes in Pennsylvania and Michigan, it's massive.
Even high-profile Democrats like California Governor Gavin Newsom admitted the ad was "devastating." He noted that Harris’s decision to ignore the ad rather than counter it might have been a tactical mistake.
📖 Related: Ukraine War Map May 2025: Why the Frontlines Aren't Moving Like You Think
What This Means for You
If you're trying to make sense of the 2024 election results, you have to look at the "they/them" ad. It wasn't just about transgender rights; it was a proxy for a much larger argument about "woke" culture versus the "common man."
The Trump campaign realized that while most Americans are generally "live and let live," they aren't necessarily on board with tax dollars funding complex surgeries for people in prison. By pinning that specific, niche policy on Harris, they made her look out of touch with the average voter.
Actionable Insights for the Future
If you want to understand how political messaging will look in the next few years, keep these takeaways in mind:
- Old records never die: Anything a candidate said in a primary five years ago is fair game. In the age of digital archives, there is no "reset" button.
- The "Taxpayer" Angle: If you can frame a social issue as a financial burden on the voter, it will almost always perform better in swing districts.
- Silence is a choice: If a candidate doesn't respond to a viral attack, voters usually assume the attack is true.
The 2024 cycle proved that cultural issues—specifically those involving the intersection of government spending and identity politics—are powerful enough to move the needle in a way "traditional" policy debates about the economy or foreign policy sometimes don't. Whether you liked the ads or hated them, they changed the course of the race.
Next time you see a political ad that seems "too wild to be true," do a quick search for the source. Usually, you'll find it’s built on a grain of truth that’s been polished to a high-gloss finish for the cameras.
Next Steps for Staying Informed:
Check the Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings or sites like AdImpact to see which ads are getting the most funding in your area. Following the money is usually the fastest way to see what internal polls are telling the candidates about what voters actually care about.