How much did protective costs for Trump properties (Mar-a-Lago, Bedminster, New York) contribute each year?
Executive summary
Available public records and watchdog analyses show that Secret Service spending tied to protecting Donald Trump at his properties is unevenly documented: watchdog CREW found roughly $1.75–$2.0 million paid to Trump-owned businesses across his first term (2017–2021) but those records are incomplete [1], Newsweek identified roughly $1.4 million in perimeter-security contracts for Mar‑a‑Lago between August 2024 and February 2025 [2], and earlier reporting documented room‑and‑cottage charges such as up to $650 per night at Mar‑a‑Lago and $17,000 per month for a Bedminster cottage in 2017–2018 [3] [4].
1. The best consolidated figure for 2017–2021: about $1.75–$2 million but incomplete
Documents obtained and analyzed by the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) show the Secret Service spent nearly $2 million at Trump properties, with roughly $1.75 million paid directly to Trump businesses during the 2017–2021 period — a figure CREW cautions is likely an undercount because the records appear incomplete [1].
2. A discrete 2024–early‑2025 snapshot: $1.4 million on Mar‑a‑Lago perimeter contracts
Federal procurement data reported by Newsweek shows the Secret Service awarded contracts described as "Mar a Lago perimeter assets" totaling more than $1.4 million for the August 2024–February 2025 window, including a single contract of about $478,000 in February 2025 [2].
3. Lodging line items: nightly and monthly charges reported in contemporaneous reporting
Contemporaneous reporting and archived receipts identified by multiple outlets documented payments of up to $650 per night at Mar‑a‑Lago in 2017 and routine nightly charges of $396.15 in 2018, while Secret Service agents rented a three‑bedroom cottage at Bedminster for $17,000 per month; the Trump Organization disputed some rate characterizations [3] [4] [5].
4. Local public‑safety costs dwarf federal lodging line items in some years
Palm Beach County reports and reporting illustrate a separate and much larger local security burden: county officials estimated deputies’ overtime and other costs tied to frequent Mar‑a‑Lago visits could push local security expenses to more than $45 million annually, with nearly 91,000 overtime hours logged in a February of heavy presidential visits [6]. These are county expenditures distinct from Secret Service contracts [6].
5. Why year‑by‑year breakdowns by property remain imprecise
Multiple reporting threads emphasize gaps and irregularities in public disclosures: the Secret Service has not consistently filed the semiannual reports required by law (reporting lapses cited by The Seattle Times), some payments were misclassified or left blank in filings, and watchdogs say records appear incomplete — all of which prevent a fully reliable, property‑by‑property annual accounting in the public record [3] [1].
6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas
Watchdogs frame the spending as taxpayer money flowing into the former president’s private businesses (CREW) [1], while the Secret Service and its defenders say the spending balances operational security with resource allocation and note agents are exempt from ordinary per‑diem limits when protecting the president [3] [2]. The Trump Organization has disputed specific rate characterizations in some reporting, pointing to differing interpretations of invoices and what constituted market rates [3].
7. Bottom line for readers seeking an annual contribution number
There is no single, authoritative public ledger that breaks out annual Secret Service spending to Mar‑a‑Lago, Bedminster and New York properties for every calendar year; the best available aggregates show roughly $1.75–$2.0 million tied to Trump properties across the 2017–2021 term (CREW) [1], discrete contracts of about $1.4 million for Mar‑a‑Lago in Aug 2024–Feb 2025 (Newsweek) [2], and documented lodging rates such as $650/night and $17,000/month for Bedminster in 2017–2018 reported contemporaneously [3] [4]. Public gaps and classification issues mean those numbers should be read as minimums, not definitive annual totals [1] [3].