Fact check: What was the total cost of police overtime during the Los Angeles protests?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the total cost of police overtime during the Los Angeles protests shows varying figures depending on the timeframe and reporting date. $11.7 million was consistently reported as the amount allocated specifically for officer overtime during the protests ^{[1] [2] [3]}. However, the LAPD initially requested $22.3 million for overtime costs, with $5 million already approved and an additional $17.3 million loan approved to cover remaining costs ^[4].

The most comprehensive figure comes from later reporting, which indicates that more than $11 million was spent on overtime as part of nearly $17 million in total LAPD response costs ^[3]. By June 20, the total cost of the city's response to protests had reached more than $32 million, with $29 million attributable to LAPD activities, including officer overtime ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important temporal context - the costs evolved significantly over time as the protests continued. The analyses reveal that initial estimates of $11.7 million for overtime ^[1] grew substantially, with total LAPD costs reaching nearly $17 million and overall city response costs exceeding $32 million ^[5].

Missing financial context includes the broader pattern of LAPD overtime spending. One source mentions that the Police Department spent $265 million in overtime overall, though this figure encompasses all agencies and is not specific to the protests ^[6]. Additionally, the city has had to borrow $17.3 million in loans to cover police compensation in 2025, with overtime pay increasing due to officer shortages and fiscal pressures ^[7].

The analyses don't provide information about who benefits financially from these overtime expenditures - namely the individual officers receiving the overtime pay and potentially police unions that negotiate these compensation structures.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself doesn't contain misinformation, but it oversimplifies a complex financial situation by seeking a single "total cost" figure. The question fails to specify a timeframe, which is crucial since the costs accumulated over weeks and were reported at different intervals.

The question also doesn't acknowledge that overtime costs were part of much larger expenditures - the $11.7 million in overtime was embedded within $19.7 million in total city response costs initially ^[1], growing to over $32 million by June 20 ^[5]. This framing could potentially minimize the full financial impact of the city's response to the protests.