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 do Trump golf course expenses compare to previous presidential travel costs?
Executive Summary
Donald Trump’s golf-related travel and Secret Service costs reported in 2025 and 2026 are materially large but fall into a broader pattern of expensive presidential travel that includes Air Force One and other official protections; available reports show individual high-cost events—like a Super Bowl visit costing the Secret Service more than $120,000 and accumulated golf-site security over $18 million—while comparisons to total previous presidential travel spending are incomplete in the provided material. The data show high headline numbers for Trump’s trips but the sources differ on scope, timeframes, and what expenses are included, so simple one-to-one comparisons are misleading [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the reported Trump-specific numbers actually say — big-ticket events and aggregated golf spending
Reports compiled in late 2025 and early 2026 quantify several large, discrete costs tied to Trump’s travel. A September 17, 2025 piece reported Secret Service spending of over $120,000 for a five-hour Super Bowl visit, including more than $115,000 in hotel bills, documenting a single-event security and lodging bill [1]. Separate accounts attribute cumulative costs from frequent golf trips to his Florida courses exceeding $18 million since he returned to the presidency, and previous aggregated figures from his earlier term allegedly reached $151.5 million, though methodologies differ across accounts [3]. These figures highlight substantial, recurring operational costs tied to travel to private properties and high-profile events, but they do not, on their own, convert to a clean historical comparison without standardized categories of spending [1] [3].
2. What comparisons to “previous presidential travel costs” are missing from the record provided
None of the supplied sources offer a comprehensive, apples-to-apples longitudinal dataset comparing Trump’s travel and security outlays to those of past presidents across identical line items and timeframes. The Air Force One discussion notes taxpayer coverage of presidential air travel and distinctions between official versus political travel reimbursements, pointing out structural reasons why travel costs vary depending on trip classification rather than occupant alone [4]. Fact-checking on White House expenditures shows presidents sometimes cover or supplement personal costs, but that does not standardize security or operational expenses borne by the government, leaving a gap in cross-era comparisons [5]. Without matched categories—security detail, transportation, lodging, local law enforcement support—comparisons risk conflating different accounting practices and trip types [4] [5].
3. Conflicting narratives and potential agendas shape headline figures
Coverage ranges from straightforward reporting of invoices to narrative-driven projections that amplify potential totals. The Daily Star’s piece projecting Ryder Cup-related costs surpassing £12 million and referencing prior event totals like £14.8m or £6m frames Trump attendance as potentially “most expensive,” a framing that can push readers toward sensational conclusions without presenting accounting details [2]. Conversely, fact-check coverage emphasizing traditions of presidential personal spending seeks to contextualize expenses as not wholly unprecedented, which could downplay taxpayer burdens [5]. Readers should weigh both the factual invoice reporting and the editorial framings that select which numbers to emphasize [2] [5].
4. How transportation and classification rules change the math
The cost of presidential movement hinges on classification of trips as official, political, or personal. The referenced Air Force One discussion clarifies that official trips are paid for by the government, while political travel must be reimbursed by campaigns, which shifts cost responsibility and therefore complicates direct comparisons of “presidential travel costs” across administrations [4]. Trump’s use of private properties raises recurring local security and transport costs that behave differently than a standard White House domestic trip or a state visit, producing spikes tied to private-site logistics and local law enforcement coordination that are not consistently logged across presidencies [4] [3].
5. What independent, comprehensive comparison would need to show
A rigorous, multi-year comparative analysis must present standardized categories (security, air transport, lodging, local law enforcement, lost revenue for venues) and consistent timeframes. The current available sources provide high-quality snapshots—single-event Secret Service bills and cumulative golf-related totals—but lack a harmonized accounting baseline to compare to prior presidents’ travel costs. To resolve the debate credibly, auditors would need itemized annual spending for presidential travel across administrations, with transparent categorization of which costs are attributable to private-property visits versus official duties [1] [3] [4].
6. Bottom line for readers weighing the figures
The documented numbers establish that Trump-related travel events have produced noteworthy, sometimes headline-grabbing taxpayer expenditures, with single events costing six-figure sums and aggregated golf security exceeding millions. However, claims that these expenses are categorically unprecedented require matched accounting across administrations—an element missing from the provided materials. Consumers of these reports should treat event-level invoices as reliable facts about what was spent, while treating broader “most expensive” or historical-rank assertions as contingent on accounting choices and framing [1] [2] [3] [4].