How do Trump golf course subsidies compare to those received by other private golf courses in the US?
Executive summary
Reporting shows critics and trackers estimate that taxpayer costs tied to President Trump’s golf trips have reached tens of millions in 2025 — individual-trip estimates as high as about $3.38 million for Florida trips and aggregated tallies in the tens of millions [1] [2]. Public coverage focuses on the operational security, flight and motorcade costs that make presidential golf trips expensive even when they occur at courses the president owns; available sources do not provide a systematic, apples‑to‑apples comparison between subsidies or government payments to Trump’s courses versus those received by other private U.S. golf courses [1] [3].
1. Why Trump’s golf trips show up as a taxpayer line item — even at his own clubs
Journalists and watchdogs explain that costs tied to presidential travel (Air Force One, military lift of vehicles, Secret Service, marine and local law‑enforcement security) are borne by taxpayers regardless of destination; analyses cited in March 2025 estimate a single Florida golf trip can cost roughly $3.38 million because of those security and transport elements [1] [3]. Reports and commentary catalogue specific added items — like Coast Guard or police‑boat patrols when Mar‑a‑Lago is involved, or the use of military transport for motorcade vehicles — as drivers of the large tab [1] [2].
2. Aggregated tallies: tracking dozens of trips into “tens of millions”
Local and national outlets and trackers have aggregated per‑trip estimates and Secret Service contracts to claim that Trump’s golf‑related costs to taxpayers have totaled many millions in 2025; one outlet cites more than $26 million in fees while trackers like DidTrumpGolfToday and various news analyses report figures ranging into the dozens of millions and even cite cumulative past‑term totals in the tens or hundreds of millions depending on methodology and time frame [2] [4] [5]. These totals reflect counting the travel/security machinery around repeated trips rather than direct subsidies to the golf businesses themselves [1] [3].
3. What counts as a “subsidy” — and what available reporting actually documents
None of the supplied sources documents direct, recurring subsidies from the federal government to Trump’s private golf courses (for example, explicit operating grants or tax abatements paid by federal agencies to the clubs). Coverage instead documents taxpayer‑borne costs of presidential travel and Secret Service contracts tied to protecting the president when he visits his properties, plus reporting on Secret Service purchases (e.g., golf cart and portable‑toilet contracts at Bedminster) that are paid for by federal agencies [4] [1]. Available sources do not mention formal subsidy programs targeted to Trump courses or a standard subsidy comparison across private clubs [4] [1].
4. How this compares to “other private golf courses” — limits of the record
Direct, source‑backed comparisons between the government costs tied to Trump’s visits and the public supports other private U.S. golf courses receive are not present in the material provided. The sources focus on presidential travel and Secret Service expenditures tied to Trump’s trips rather than industry‑wide data on public subsidies, local tax breaks, infrastructure spending, or municipal concessions that some private or semi‑public clubs may receive [1] [4]. Therefore, available sources do not mention a systematic comparison of taxpayer costs or subsidies for Trump golf properties versus a representative sample of other private courses (not found in current reporting).
5. Competing frames in the coverage — enrichment vs. routine presidential expense
Opinion pieces and watchdog reports present two competing frames: critics argue the president is enriching personal businesses by repeatedly traveling to his own properties while costing taxpayers large sums (examples include Guardian commentary and aggregations of many visits) [6] [2]. Meanwhile, factual explanations from reporting emphasize that high costs largely derive from routine obligations of protecting and transporting a president wherever he goes — a structural feature of presidential travel, not a bespoke subsidy program for a private business [1] [3]. Both perspectives appear in the supplied coverage [6] [1].
6. What a fair, data‑driven comparison would require
To compare “subsidies” fairly, reporting would need: (a) clear definitions (direct subsidies, tax breaks, reimbursed costs, or security/transport costs); (b) itemized federal and local payments tied to each private golf property; and (c) comparable time frames and treatment of travel/security expenses. The available articles give itemized examples of travel/security spending for Trump trips and some Secret Service contract amounts [4] [1] but do not supply the industry‑wide data set that would be required to make an apples‑to‑apples comparison (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: current reporting documents substantial taxpayer costs tied to presidential travel and Secret Service support when Trump plays golf at his own clubs — often summarized as tens of millions in 2025 — but it does not provide the comprehensive, standardized data needed to compare those costs as “subsidies” against what other private U.S. golf courses receive [1] [2] [4].