Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How do presidential event costs under Biden compare to those under Trump?
Executive Summary
Presidential event and campaign travel spending under Joe Biden and Donald Trump shows Biden’s campaign reporting higher overall disbursements but comparable travel-reimbursement patterns, while both administrations impose substantial taxpayer-borne costs for official aircraft and security. Available reporting finds Biden’s campaign has disbursed nearly $100 million versus about $75 million for Trump, with detailed travel-reimbursement figures and per-hour operating estimates for Marine One and Air Force One highlighting that much of the operational bill falls to the federal government [1] [2] [3]. Several sources differ on exact reimbursement timing and amounts, so the picture is one of similar structural costs with divergent campaign accounting, not a simple one-to-one higher-or-lower verdict for either president [1] [3].
1. Campaign cash totals show Biden outspent Trump — but that’s not a straight event-cost comparison
Campaign finance tallies compiled during the 2024 cycle indicate Biden had nearly $100 million in recorded disbursements while Trump reported roughly $75 million, a gap reflecting broader campaign spending priorities rather than a clean measure of event costs alone [1]. Disbursements cover many categories — media production, digital consulting, ground transportation, legal fees, and postage — and campaigns bundle venue rentals, vendor payments, and promotional spending into these totals, complicating attempts to isolate “event costs.” The raw disbursement gap therefore signals Biden’s campaign activity intensity and cash-on-hand advantages, but it does not prove that Biden’s individual events cost more per occurrence than Trump’s; the aggregated numbers mix travel and non-event expenditures, so attribution is limited without itemized line-by-line vendor data [1].
2. Who pays for presidential travel: taxpayers shoulder most official costs
Detailed reporting on presidential travel emphasizes that operating government aircraft and security for presidential movements is primarily a federal cost, irrespective of which president is traveling for campaign or official purposes [3]. Estimates put hourly operating costs for assets like Marine One and Air Force One in a broad range — roughly $16,700 up to $200,000 per hour depending on configuration and included support — and those costs are largely borne by taxpayers when travel is official or involves security needs [3]. Campaigns may reimburse portions when a trip is solely political, but the baseline fiscal burden for transporting and protecting the president is substantial and structurally similar across administrations, which reduces the value of simple campaign-level comparisons when assessing societal cost differences between Biden and Trump [3].
3. Reimbursement records reveal differences in timing and scale, not absolutes
Publicly available reimbursements and deposits present a mixed picture of how each campaign addressed travel-related federal charges. One account notes Biden’s reelection apparatus reimbursed or planned to reimburse the federal government — with a reported $4.5 million already reimbursed — while other filings show Biden’s campaign deposited nearly $6.5 million for travel expenses but had only reimbursed about $300,000 so far, indicating timing and classification discrepancies in filings [2] [3]. By contrast, Trump’s campaign has historical precedent of reimbursements — nearly $4.7 million reimbursed for 2020 travel — demonstrating precedent but not a consistent apples-to-apples fiscal comparison for 2024 events. These divergences underscore that accounting practices, filing cadence, and what trips are classified as campaign versus official drive apparent differences more than a fundamental cost asymmetry [3] [2].
4. Event cost narratives are shaped by campaign disclosures and media framing
Media accounting tends to emphasize standout figures — total disbursements, headline reimbursements, or unpaid vendor claims — which produce narratives that either amplify a candidate’s spending or highlight taxpayer exposure. Reporting that Biden “is lapping Trump” on campaign cash focuses on overall financial muscle rather than per-event taxpayer burden, while analyses of who pays for flights stress the structural taxpayer role in presidential mobility [1] [3]. Because campaign finance reports aggregate multifaceted expenditures and because news outlets choose different focal points, readers see divergent impressions: one that Biden spends more on campaign operations and another that both presidencies impose similar federal costs through official travel. This variation reflects source selection and emphasis more than a settled, single metric of event cost comparison [1] [3].
5. Bottom line: similar systemic costs; differences lie in campaign accounting and timing
Comparing Biden and Trump on “presidential event costs” yields no decisive winner; both exhibit similar structural taxpayer exposures through official transport and security while campaign accounting yields divergent headline totals. Biden’s campaign reported higher disbursements overall, signaling greater campaign spending capacity, and reimbursement figures vary across filings and reports, producing apparent but not definitive differences in how much each campaign has reimbursed the federal government [1] [2] [3]. The most reliable takeaway is that the real fiscal driver is the federal apparatus supporting presidential travel, and differences between administrations are driven more by campaign filing practices and timing than by a fundamentally higher per-event cost uniquely attributable to either president [3] [1].