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.
What other benefits does the federal government give to ex-presidents besides pension?
Executive Summary
The federal government provides former U.S. presidents a package of benefits beyond a cash pension that includes lifetime Secret Service protection, office space and staff support, transition funding, travel and communication privileges, health and funeral benefits, and other administrative services. Analyses of the Former Presidents Act and government audits show these benefits are codified, have varied costs (estimates of hundreds of thousands to over a million dollars per former president annually), and have prompted reform proposals aimed at trimming taxpayer expense [1] [2] [3].
1. What the law actually guarantees — a concise inventory that matters to taxpayers and historians
The Former Presidents Act of 1958 establishes the baseline package: a pension set at the rate of a Cabinet secretary, office space, staffing and administrative allowances, travel and mailing (franking) privileges, and transition funding to cover immediate post-term costs. The Act also authorizes the U.S. Secret Service to provide security; statutory and subsequent practice have produced lifetime protection for most former presidents and their spouses, and eligibility for federal health benefits if conditions are met [1] [4]. Government accounting and Congressional Research summaries consistently list the same categories, underscoring that these are not informal perks but statutory entitlements designed to preserve the dignity and operational continuity of the presidency after a term ends [5] [6].
2. How much this costs — numbers, ranges, and conflicting tallies that policymakers use
Estimates differ by methodology: watchdog analyses and GAO-type reviews report per-president annual costs ranging from several hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million when office operations, staff salaries, travel, and security are included. Aggregate figures since 2000 have been estimated at roughly $125 million for security and related expenditures, with individual-year totals fluctuating with travel and staff decisions [3] [2]. Proponents of reform highlight these upper-range numbers to argue for caps and means-testing; defenders point to episodic spikes—such as elevated security needs or extensive travel—that make simple per-year averages misleading. The disparate estimates reflect different inclusions (e.g., whether Secret Service infrastructure costs are fully attributed to one former president), so cost claims often depend on accounting choices [2] [3].
3. Security and personal protection — lifetime coverage, but with legal and political wrinkles
The Secret Service protection question drives most public interest. Statute and practice provide protection to former presidents and, in practice, to their spouses, with many administrations extending it for life. However, legislative adjustments and public debate have periodically considered limits or conditions; security needs themselves can expand costs dramatically depending on threat assessments and travel patterns. Some reform proposals seek to limit lifetime coverage or require cost-sharing, framing protections as a public safety necessity versus an open-ended taxpayer liability. Government reports confirm that security is the single largest and most variable line item, and that policy changes would carry operational and political tradeoffs [5] [3].
4. Health, funerals, and symbolic benefits — downstream costs and ceremonial guarantees
Former presidents may be eligible for federal health benefits under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program if they meet vesting rules, and the government traditionally funds state funerals and ceremonial honors, including burial options like Arlington National Cemetery when statutory or regulatory criteria are satisfied. These benefits are less about ongoing consumption and more about formal honors and occasional large expenditures, such as a state funeral, which is concentrated and politically sensitive. Critics argue these honors are symbolic costs that should be retained; reformers argue they should be scaled back or funded differently. Official summaries and research reports list these items explicitly as part of the post-presidential package [4] [7].
5. Reform debates and political framing — why numbers and proposals diverge
Multiple bills and policy proposals have sought to limit pension amounts, cap staffing and travel allowances, or modify security entitlements; advocates for reform highlight taxpayer burden and fairness across federal retirees, while defenders stress continuity, security, and dignified transition. Organizations focused on fiscal restraint produce higher cost estimates and call for caps; government research and Congressional offices emphasize statutory intent and the operational necessity of many benefits. The evidence base shows real tradeoffs: reducing benefits can lower costs but may create practical gaps in security, communications capacity, or historical preservation functions. The debate remains active and partisan at times, with both fiscal and institutional arguments anchoring opposing positions [8] [3].