How have other presidents handled the presidential salary, and which donated it to charity versus government?
Executive summary
Several U.S. presidents have declined to personally keep the full statutory presidential pay, but they have not all handled the proceeds the same way: John F. Kennedy and Herbert Hoover are repeatedly cited as presidents who gave their full salaries to charity (or public causes) [1] [2], while Donald Trump has donated his annual presidential salary but — uniquely, according to legal scholars — routed those funds to federal agencies rather than exclusively to private charities [3] [4]. Reporting and analysis differ on counts and motives, so the record requires careful parsing of what “donated” meant in each case and to whom [5] [4].
1. The early pattern: private philanthropy from wealthy presidents
Historical reporting shows a pattern in which wealthy occupants of the White House viewed the presidential salary as disposable income and redirected it to private charities or civic causes: John F. Kennedy publicly donated every cent of his salary while in Congress and the White House to a handful of charities, a practice documented contemporaneously [1], and multiple retrospective accounts identify Herbert Hoover as another president who did not personally keep his pay [2] [6]. Contemporary histories also treat Kennedy’s donations as part of a broader public-service posture by privately affluent presidents [7].
2. Modern practice: partial giving versus full-salary pledges
Recent presidents have tended to give substantial sums to charities, but rarely their entire statutory salary; for example, Barack Obama is reported to have given about $1.1 million of various income to charity over eight years (notably including Nobel Prize proceeds) while George W. Bush and other first families reported sizeable charitable gifts as a share of income [2] [8]. These donations typically came from personal wealth or taxable income streams rather than constituting a wholesale redirection of the presidential wage itself, and reporting treats those gifts separately from the question of whether the president “took” the official salary [8] [2].
3. Trump’s approach: salary to federal agencies, and a constitutional wrinkle
Donald Trump fulfilled his campaign promise to forgo taking the bulk of the $400,000 salary by accepting a nominal $1 and disbursing the remainder in quarterly $100,000 checks; however, his White House earmarked those payments to federal agencies — the National Park Service, Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Transportation and Veterans Affairs, among others — rather than exclusively to private charities, a practice flagged as novel by legal analysts [3] [4]. Lawfare and other analyses emphasize that routing presidential pay into agency budgets raises unique constitutional and appropriations questions because it can look like an executive trying to direct funds to or through parts of government outside ordinary congressional appropriations [4].
4. Disputed claims and the politics of “philanthropist-in-chief”
Public statements and campaign rhetoric have sometimes overstated uniqueness: fact-checkers and archivists note that presidents before Trump also donated or redirected income, and that Trump’s assertion of being the only president to donate pay has been debunked or qualified [5]. Media summaries vary — some outlets called Trump the “third president” to donate salary [9] — which reflects differing criteria (donating any portion, donating the full statutory salary, or donating to charities versus government). Scholars and watchdogs point out that counting depends on whether one treats donations of separate personal income, Nobel Prize checks, or the federal wage itself as the same category [5] [7].
5. Interpretation: optics, capacity, and oversight
The choice to forgo salary has symbolic power — signaling public‑service ethos or wealth — but the differences in destination matter: private charitable donations transfer control to independent nonprofits, whereas transfers to federal agencies implicate budgets, program priorities and legal rules about appropriations [4]. Reporting shows presidents from wealthier backgrounds have historically been the ones to decline pay, suggesting motive is a mix of personal capacity and political messaging [1] [6]. Where reporting conflicts or is silent about specifics, the available sources are clear to flag those limits rather than assert unwarranted conclusions [5] [4].