Fact check: Have any cities estimated the total costs of antifa protests since 2020?

1. Big-ticket estimates: Los Angeles and Portland put numbers on protest costs

Los Angeles officials reported that protest-related expenditures since 2020 exceeded $32 million, with most of that attributed to Los Angeles Police Department activities and operational costs tied to demonstrations ^[1]. Portland’s published figure is at least $6.2 million, a sum the reporting notes does not include straight-time pay for officers reassigned to demonstrations, indicating the city’s estimate potentially understates full labor costs ^[2]. Both figures are explicit municipal tallies focusing on direct public-safety and city response expenses rather than broader economic impacts.

2. Business and property impacts show a different, larger dimension in Portland

Portland Deputy Police Chief Chris Davis cited a $23 million hit to downtown businesses from damages and lost customers tied to violent nightly protests, which is a separate category from city response costs and reflects private-sector losses ^[4]. This demonstrates that public cost estimates and private-sector damages are distinct and can differ materially; municipal expense tallies typically track direct government spending, while business losses and insurance claims sit outside those budgets. The presence of both categories in Portland underlines the importance of clarifying what each dollar figure represents.

3. International comparison: Melbourne’s policing bill adds context

Reporting from 2025 shows Melbourne taxpayers paid over $25 million to police city protests across a two-year period ^[3]. Although the Melbourne figure is from a different national context and later date, it provides a cross-jurisdictional data point that policing expenditures for sustained protest activity can reach tens of millions. Comparing Melbourne with U.S. city figures underscores how scope, duration, and policing strategies materially shape the final totals, and it signals that large public bills are not unique to one country or city.

4. Many cities discussed did not publish consolidated “antifa” cost totals

Several articles in the material either do not provide a total cost estimate tied specifically to “antifa” or focus on arrests and incidents without producing a consolidated fiscal tally ^{[5] [6]}. For example, coverage of Denver and the Minneapolis–Saint Paul area emphasizes arrests, federal intervention warnings, and arson incidents without presenting a citywide monetary sum for protests attributed to specific groups ^{[5] [6]}. This patchwork of reporting stresses that absence of a published total does not equal absence of costs; it may reflect different reporting practices or political sensitivities.

5. Dates and reporting windows change the picture—comparability is limited

The municipal estimates come from different publication dates and reporting windows: Portland’s $6.2 million was reported in February 2024 while earlier Portland business-impact claims date to July 2020; Los Angeles’s $32 million figure was reported in June 2025; Melbourne’s policing bill appears in September 2025 ^{[2] [4] [1] [3]}. Because each figure covers different timeframes and may use different accounting methods—some excluding straight-time pay or private-sector losses—direct comparisons across cities or across years are not a reliable indicator of per-event or per-capita costs without standardization.

6. What the available numbers omit and why that matters

The sourced analyses repeatedly note omissions: Portland’s city estimate excludes straight-time pay for reassigned officers, and business losses are tracked separately from municipal spending ^{[2] [4]}. Reporting on other locales (Denver, Minneapolis–Saint Paul) focuses on arrests and arson rather than consolidated fiscal tallies ^{[5] [6]}. These gaps mean that publicly reported totals likely undercount the comprehensive social and economic burden of prolonged protest periods, which could include overtime, emergency medical response, litigation, lost tax revenue, and uninsured private losses.

7. Multiple narratives and the need to scrutinize sources

The materials show varied emphases: municipal budgets framing public-safety spending ^{[1] [2]}, law-enforcement accounts of damages and disruptions ^[4], and reporting that highlights arrests and federal intervention concerns without fiscal totals ^{[5] [6]}. Each narrative can reflect institutional perspectives and incentives—cities may emphasize operational costs, police departments may emphasize damages, and some coverage foregrounds public-order concerns—so readers should treat each figure as partial and linked to the reporter’s and agency’s focus ^{[1] [2] [4] [5]}.

8. Bottom line and what to look for next

The compiled material confirms that some cities have issued multi-million-dollar estimates of protest-related costs—Los Angeles, Portland, and Melbourne among them—but those numbers cover different items and timeframes and therefore are not directly additive or comparable ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}. Any comprehensive accounting would require standardized methodologies that include direct municipal expenditures, overtime, private-sector damages, insurance claims, and broader economic impacts; none of the provided sources delivers that full, standardized picture ^{[2] [4]}.