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.
Fact check: How does the Secret Service budget for protecting Trump during golf trips?
Executive Summary
The core claim is that the U.S. Secret Service has incurred substantial taxpayer costs to secure former President Trump during golf trips, including contracts for golf cart rentals and portable toilets at Bedminster totaling over $600,000 and broader expenditures at Trump properties across his presidency. Reporting and government reviews between 2022 and 2025 document specific contract amounts and aggregated spending, while political actors dispute whether those costs reflect normal protective needs or represent excessive enrichment of Trump’s businesses; the evidence shows clear expenditures but diverging interpretations about propriety and scale [1] [2] [3].
1. Numbers on the table: what contracts and totals tell us about costs
Government procurement records and reporting indicate specific Secret Service contracts tied to Bedminster that sum to over $600,000, with line-item amounts identified as roughly $550,930 for golf cart rentals and about $80,385 for restroom rentals and services, according to documents reported in June and August 2025 [1] [4]. These contract figures are concrete entries in procurement data and reflect paid vendor services for logistics around protective operations. Separate reporting places early-term Secret Service spending at nearly $100,000 at Trump properties in 2025 and earlier totals near $2 million across the presidency, establishing a pattern of measurable expenditures by the agency at Trump-owned venues [3] [2].
2. Politics meet procurement: competing narratives about who benefits
Democratic commentators and committee reports frame these expenditures as evidence that taxpayer funds are enriching Trump’s businesses, citing overall totals of tens of millions for golf trips and his Scotland trip estimated at $10 million, and alleging overcharging and favorable revenue to Trump properties [5] [6]. By contrast, official Secret Service procurement defenders and some government statements emphasize the operational necessities of protecting a former president, arguing that mobility, sanitation, and crowd-control logistics generate vendor contracts regardless of venue. The two narratives both rely on the same expenditures but diverge sharply on whether those expenditures are unavoidable security costs or ethically problematic monetization.
3. International angle: bigger bills in Scotland and UK disputes
Beyond Bedminster, UK and Scottish authorities reported major policing and protection bills tied to Trump’s visits in 2025, with Scottish estimates around £24.5–£25 million and Police Scotland’s bill about £24.1 million, prompting a dispute over whether the UK Treasury should reimburse Scotland [7] [8]. These figures show that protections and policing abroad can produce far larger sums than single-event procurement contracts; they also reveal sovereign disagreements over whether a visit was “private” or of diplomatic significance, which materially affects which government bears costs. The Scottish government’s request for reimbursement illustrates how jurisdictional rules and political framing change who is billed.
4. Historical context: pattern of spending at Trump properties across years
Congressional and journalistic reporting dating back to 2022 documents millions in Secret Service spending at Trump properties, including payments at Mar-a-Lago and golf courses, with House oversight alleging instances of inflated charges such as a 300% mark-up for accommodations [2] [6]. Those earlier findings create a longitudinal record that frames the 2025 Bedminster contracts not as isolated anomalies but as part of an ongoing interaction between protective operations and Trump-owned venues. The record shows consistent expenditures, though the provenance of higher charges and contractual competitiveness remain contested in committee findings.
5. What the records do not fully settle: intent, alternatives, and oversight gaps
Procurement entries and policing invoices establish what was spent, but they do not by themselves prove intent to enrich or misprice services, nor do they fully document whether less costly alternatives were feasible. Reporting and disputes highlight omitted considerations: comparisons with typical Secret Service logistics at non-Trump venues, bidding competitiveness for contracts, and accounting for the extraordinary security footprint that accompanies former presidents. Oversight reports assert overcharging in some cases, but procurement data alone cannot resolve whether expenditures reflected unavoidable security requirements or poor contract management [4] [6].
6. Bottom line and open questions for accountability
The factual record from 2022–2025 shows documented Secret Service expenditures at Trump-owned sites, specific vendor contracts at Bedminster exceeding $600,000, and larger policing bills in Scotland of roughly £25 million, establishing clear financial impacts on taxpayers [1] [7]. What remains subject to further factual and legal resolution are questions about procurement practices, price reasonableness, potential conflicts of interest, and which government should shoulder international policing costs—areas where political agendas shape interpretation and where additional audits, public records on bidding, and intergovernmental determinations would materially clarify whether spending reflected necessary protection or undue enrichment [3] [8].