Did other presidents consistently donate their presidential salaries like Trump claimed?
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s claim that other presidents “did the same” by donating their presidential pay is misleading: a handful of wealthy presidents have given their salaries away, typically to charities, but Trump’s pattern of routing his salary to federal agencies is unusual in the historical record and has raised distinct legal and ethical questions [1] [2] [3].
1. The simple fact: some presidents gave their pay, but not many
Since the founding, presidents have been paid a salary set by Congress and several presidents—most notably Herbert Hoover and John F. Kennedy—donated their presidential pay, but these instances are the exception rather than the rule [1] [3] [4].
2. Who donated, and where the money went
Herbert Hoover, a wealthy businessman, is widely reported as the first president to donate his full salary to charity during the Depression-era White House, and John F. Kennedy—coming from great private wealth—also donated his government earnings to charitable causes across his political career, totaling roughly half a million dollars over many years in public office [1] [4]. Reporting also notes other presidents have made charitable gifts while in office or after, but systematic, recurring full-salary donations remain rare [5].
3. What makes Trump’s donations different
Scholars and legal commentators highlight that President Trump’s practice—publicly forgoing most of his $400,000 salary by making quarterly donations to federal agencies—is distinct because prior presidents who gave away salary generally sent it to charities, not to federal departments [2]. Lawfare explicitly states Trump is the first to donate his salary to government agencies, a move that poses “unique constitutional and statutory questions” about the personalization of congressional spending power [2].
4. How consistent were other presidents compared with Trump’s public pledge
The historical pattern is not one of steady precedent: donations by Hoover and Kennedy were instances tied to personal wealth and choice rather than a customary presidential practice, and other presidents did not consistently refuse their salary as a rule of office [1] [4]. By contrast, Trump pledged and repeatedly enacted a policy of quarterly disbursements—an ongoing, publicized practice that media reporting documents across his terms [3] [6].
5. Gray areas and disputes in coverage
Some outlets and opinion writers conflate “donated to charity” with “donated” in general when comparing presidents, which obscures the key difference about recipients; multiple sources point out that while several presidents gave to charity, Trump’s gifts to federal agencies are an unprecedented form of donation by a president [2] [3]. Local editorials and fact-check columns also note that other presidents like Barack Obama did donate portions of their income to charity over time—Obama reportedly gave roughly $1.1 million of about $3.2 million earned in office to charity across eight years—showing giving is not unique but again different in scale, recipient and regularity [7].
6. Constitutional and ethical implications that make a real difference
Legal analysts worry that a president directing salary funds into federal agencies could blur the lines between the executive and Congress’s appropriations power and might create incentives or perceptions of politicized supplemental funding for departments—concerns less salient when prior donations went to private charities rather than government programs [2]. Reporting documents the novelty of channeling presidential pay back into agencies and the policy questions that raises about transparency and congressional control [2].
Conclusion: Did other presidents consistently do what Trump claims?
No. Other presidents occasionally donated their pay—most prominently Hoover and Kennedy—and some presidents made charitable contributions while in office, but it was not a consistent or institutionalized practice; moreover, Trump’s repeated, publicized donations to federal agencies represent a novel variant that previous presidents did not follow, and that novelty is why legal commentators singled it out as a new precedent with constitutional overtones [1] [3] [2] [7].