How do Secret Service spending and per-person protection costs for Trump compare to previous ex-presidents?
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s pattern of frequent travel, large number of protected family members, and use of properties he controls has driven Secret Service spending and per‑person protection burdens above those typical for recent ex‑presidents, though precise per‑person cost comparisons are limited by incomplete public accounting and redactions in agency records [1] [2]. Investigations and watchdog tallies document millions in Secret Service outlays tied to Trump and his family and show the agency stretched thin, prompting congressional and internal reviews [3] [4] [5].
1. Trump’s travel frequency and protected trips outpace predecessors
Multiple watchdogs and reporting find the Trump family took a dramatically larger number of “protected trips” than recent first families—Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington counted thousands of such trips and concluded the Trump family took roughly 12 times more protected trips than the Obama family in comparable years, a spike that materially increased protective travel costs [6]. Reporting contemporaneous to his presidency also found Trump left the White House more often than modern presidents, putting him on a trajectory to outstrip Obama’s travel and protection spending if patterns continued [1] [7].
2. Documented Secret Service outlays tied directly to Trump and his circle
Released records and oversight inquiries show concrete sums: the Secret Service spent at least $1.3 million protecting Trump in the immediate post‑presidential period in one accounting and around $1.7 million protecting extended Trump family members in the six months after he left office—figures that represent only portions of total protective costs once wages, logistics, airlift and other overhead are included [8] [4]. A House Oversight probe flagged more than $1.4 million billed to the Secret Service by Trump businesses for lodging and related charges, evidence of direct payments from protection operations into Trump‑affiliated enterprises [3].
3. Lodging and self‑dealing amplify per‑person and aggregate costs
Investigations by the House committee and news outlets found Secret Service lodging charges at Trump properties exceeding government per diem and often higher than rates charged to non‑government guests, a dynamic that increased costs and raised emoluments concerns while the president retained business interests [3] [9]. The agency’s exemption from federal lodging caps for protective assignments enabled higher per‑agent accommodation bills when protectees stayed at Trump‑owned hotels or clubs [3].
4. Agency strain, hiring drives, and federal context
The Secret Service has repeatedly told Congress it lacks money and staff, prompting one of the biggest hiring pushes in its history as the agency prepares for multiple major events and to cope with stretched protective demands—illustrating institutional strain beyond line‑item dollar totals [5] [10]. Historically, federal support for former presidents (including protection) was much smaller in earlier eras—GAO reported federal costs for former presidents around $26 million in fiscal year 2000—but that historical baseline does not translate directly into modern per‑person protection costs because mission scope, technology and travel intensity have changed [11].
5. What can’t be precisely measured — and why comparisons are imperfect
There is no comprehensive public ledger that breaks down total Secret Service protective spending into neat “per‑person” figures for each ex‑president; researchers note the absence of definitive travel and security cost disclosures and significant redactions in requested records, so aggregate comparisons rely on watchdog reconstructions and partial FOIA data rather than a single authoritative dataset [1] [2]. That limitation means analysts can reliably say Trump’s pattern of protected travel and family coverage produced higher documented outlays and unusual billing flows into his businesses, but cannot definitively produce a full, audited per‑person cost comparison across all modern ex‑presidents.
6. Competing interpretations and political stakes
Advocates for tighter rules point to documented overcharges and the unusual volume of protected travel as evidence that Trump uniquely burdened taxpayers and benefited financially from protection arrangements [3] [6], while defenders stress that Secret Service obligations to protect families are statutory and that staffing and funding shortfalls constrained the agency’s options [10]. Congress and independent panels have responded with inquiries, funding adjustments and calls for reforms—a recognition that both the spend pressure and the potential for conflicts of interest require policy fixes even if monetary totals remain partially opaque [5] [10].