The cost that Donald Trump has caused the tax payers of the United States of America.
An Analysis of Taxpayer Costs Associated with Donald Trump's Presidency and Post-Presidency Activities (2017-Present)
Executive Summary
This report provides a quantitative assessment of the direct financial costs incurred by U.S. taxpayers attributable to Donald Trump's presidency, spanning from January 2017, and his subsequent activities to the present. While a definitive, all-encompassing total is challenging to ascertain due to data limitations, ongoing legal processes, and the inherent complexities of government accounting, significant expenditures have been identified across several key categories. These include presidential and post-presidential travel and security, extensive legal challenges and investigations, and the profound financial consequences of the January 6th Capitol insurrection.
Key findings indicate that presidential travel during Trump's first term incurred costs comparable to, or exceeding, those of predecessors who served longer terms. Secret Service protection, particularly at private properties, led to substantial taxpayer outlays, often involving charges significantly above standard government rates. Legal and investigative costs, driven by special counsel probes and an unprecedented volume of lawsuits challenging administration policies, represent a multi-million dollar burden. The January 6th Capitol attack stands out as a singular event imposing a multi-billion dollar cost on taxpayers, exacerbated by executive actions that absolved perpetrators of restitution payments. Beyond these direct outlays, the analysis touches upon broader fiscal shifts, such as increased budget deficits, and ethical concerns related to conflicts of interest that carry implicit costs to public trust and the integrity of governance. This report aims to provide a transparent and evidence-based accounting of these financial impacts.
Introduction
The financial footprint of a presidential administration extends far beyond its annual budgetary allocations, encompassing direct operational expenditures, unforeseen legal liabilities, and the costs associated with specific events or policy implementations. This report addresses the public's inquiry into the financial burden placed upon U.S. taxpayers by Donald Trump, covering his tenure as President from January 2017 through to his post-presidency activities up to the present day. The analysis synthesizes information from official government accountability offices, non-partisan watchdog organizations, and reputable journalistic investigations to provide a comprehensive, data-driven accounting.
It is important to acknowledge that obtaining a precise, real-time total for all categories of expenditure is inherently complex. Some figures presented herein are estimates, while others are subject to ongoing developments in legal proceedings or government reporting. This report endeavors to present the most accurate and transparent financial accounting possible, based on the available and verifiable data. The objective is to delineate the various ways in which taxpayer funds have been expended in connection with the former President's actions and associated events, providing clarity on the quantifiable impacts on the national treasury.
I. Costs Associated with Presidential and Post-Presidential Travel & Security
Presidential travel and the associated security apparatus represent a significant and ongoing cost to taxpayers. During Donald Trump's time in office and extending into his post-presidency, these expenditures have drawn particular scrutiny due to their frequency, choice of destination, and the involvement of private properties.
A. Presidential Travel Expenses (2017-2021)
Donald Trump's first term in office (2017-2021) saw estimated presidential travel costs reach approximately $144 million.1 This figure is notable when compared to his predecessors; for instance, Barack Obama's entire eight-year presidency incurred about $105 million in travel expenses, and George W. Bush's eight-year term cost around $140 million.1 The fact that Trump's four-year travel costs are comparable to or exceed the eight-year totals of previous administrations highlights a disproportionate expenditure during his single term.
Early in his presidency, specific trips to his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida demonstrated the scale of these costs. Four trips between February 3 and March 5, 2017, alone cost federal agencies an estimated $13.6 million.2 This substantial sum included approximately $10.6 million for operational costs, primarily for government aircraft and boats, and $3 million for temporary duty costs of personnel supporting the President's travel.3 The average cost for each of these early Mar-a-Lago trips was about $3.38 million.2 Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, provided further estimates, suggesting individual Mar-a-Lago trips cost around $1 million each, with Air Force One operations accounting for approximately $142,000 per hour and Secret Service costs adding an estimated $250,000 per trip.5 The involvement of the Coast Guard to secure the waterways near Mar-a-Lago further elevates these expenses.3
A broader analysis by HuffPost indicated that Trump's golf outings alone cost U.S. taxpayers at least $102 million during his first two and a half years in office.6 This figure was strikingly close to the $114.7 million spent by Barack Obama and his family on travel during Obama's entire eight years in the White House.6 Another specific instance, a two-day stopover at his Trump Turnberry golf resort in Scotland in 2018, incurred over $1.1 million in taxpayer costs, including more than $950,000 for Secret Service expenses and over $230,000 for the State Department.7
The consistently high travel costs, particularly those associated with frequent visits to private properties owned by the President, underscore a significant financial implication for taxpayers. The choice of private, often remote, destinations necessitated extensive security and logistical setups, such as the deployment of the Coast Guard for Mar-a-Lago.5 This pattern suggests that the President's personal preferences regarding leisure and business directly translated into elevated and potentially avoidable public expenditures, going beyond what might be considered typical for official presidential duties or necessary periods of rest. The frequent use of properties from which the President personally profited raised questions about the ethical separation of public service and private financial interests, contributing to an increased burden on the public purse.
B. Secret Service Spending at Trump Properties
The Secret Service is legally mandated to protect the President and his family, but the manner in which this protection was facilitated at properties owned by Donald Trump has been a notable area of concern regarding taxpayer funds. Records indicate that the Secret Service spent nearly $2 million of taxpayer money at Trump properties.8 While newly acquired records showed approximately $1.75 million, other reports suggest the total is closer to $2 million.8 This spending effectively meant that taxpayers were directly funding Trump's businesses for the right to protect him and his family.
A breakdown of this spending reveals over $300,000 at Mar-a-Lago, more than $850,000 (likely closer to $1 million) at his golf properties, and over $400,000 (likely much more) at Trump hotels.8 A significant issue identified was the practice of Trump properties charging the Secret Service rates substantially above typical government limits. For example, a room at Trump's D.C. hotel was billed at $1,185 per night for Secret Service agents, which was more than five times the approved government per diem rate of $201.9 This practice occurred despite public claims by Eric Trump that the Trump Organization only charged "like $50" for housekeeping.9 In one specific incident, taxpayers absorbed a $31,000 charge to Trump's hotel for a visit to Las Vegas following a mass shooting.8
This consistent pattern of charging the Secret Service, a taxpayer-funded entity, exorbitant rates at properties owned by the President, represents a direct financial benefit to the President's private businesses. It indicates a blurring of the lines between official government operations and personal financial gain. The protected individual directly profited from the protective detail, which is funded by the public. This practice raises fundamental questions about presidential ethics and the potential exploitation of public office for private enrichment. It suggests that the President's business interests were prioritized, leading to a direct financial cost for the American public and potentially eroding public trust in the integrity of the presidency.
C. Post-Presidency Secret Service Protection for Trump and his Associates
The financial obligation for Secret Service protection extends beyond a president's term in office, but certain decisions made by Donald Trump have expanded this burden on taxpayers. In the 12 months following his departure from office, the Secret Service spent at least $1.3 million on hotel and transportation costs alone to protect Donald Trump.12 This figure does not include the salaries of agents or other associated expenses, indicating the true cost was higher. Furthermore, reports indicate that Trump personally charged Secret Service agents $40,000 for rooms at his Mar-a-Lago club even after leaving office.12
In an unusual executive action before leaving office, Trump directed the Secret Service to provide an additional six months of free protection to all five of his adult children and three former senior officials, including Mark Meadows and Steven Mnuchin.12 This extended protection incurred a cost of $1.7 million to taxpayers.12 Additionally, ongoing protection for former National Security Advisors John Bolton and Robert O'Brien, necessitated by potential Iranian threats, cost taxpayers $12.28 million for nearly a year.13 Trump initially directed protection for O'Brien, costing $1.928 million for the period ending September 2021, which was later extended by President Biden.13
The discretionary extension of Secret Service protection to individuals not typically covered by standard post-presidency protocols, such as adult children and specific former officials, and the continued practice of charging the Secret Service for stays at private properties post-presidency, demonstrate a persistent pattern. This pattern involves leveraging presidential authority, or the influence derived from it, for personal and political benefit. Such actions directly extend the financial burden on taxpayers beyond the term of office, raising concerns about the appropriate use of public resources and the potential for establishing new precedents regarding post-presidential benefits. This suggests a systemic approach to maximizing financial advantage from public service, even after leaving the White House.
Estimated Taxpayer Costs for Travel and Security (2017-Present)
II. Legal and Investigation Costs
The period encompassing Donald Trump's presidency and post-presidency has been marked by an extraordinary volume of legal challenges and investigations, many of which have imposed direct and indirect financial costs on U.S. taxpayers.
A. Special Counsel Investigations
Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigations into former President Donald Trump, which focused on his handling of classified documents after leaving office and his efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, have likely cost taxpayers over $50 million.14 The spending breakdown for Smith's office, appointed in November 2022, shows significant expenses: $9.25 million between mid-November 2022 and March 2023, $14.66 million from April to September 2023, and $11.84 million from October 2023 to March 2024.14 These figures include both direct and indirect costs from other Justice Department agencies, and the final amount is anticipated to be higher as more recent expenses were not yet included in the available reports.14
The multi-million dollar cost of these special counsel investigations represents a direct financial consequence of alleged misconduct during and after Trump's presidency. The initiation of such high-level investigations arises from serious allegations concerning actions that potentially jeopardized national security or undermined democratic processes. When these investigations are deemed necessary, the financial burden of pursuing legal accountability for those alleged actions falls squarely on the taxpayer. This dynamic highlights a systemic cost associated with potential executive branch malfeasance, where the public pays for the investigation of actions that may have broad societal implications. The fact that some legal proceedings related to these investigations were halted due to a potential future presidency also implies that these significant costs may not always lead to a full legal resolution, potentially leaving taxpayers with the bill but without complete judicial finality.
B. Costs of Defending Administration Policies and Executive Orders
The Trump administration faced an unprecedented volume of litigation challenging its executive orders, proclamations, and policy decisions. As of May 1, 2025, over 328 lawsuits had been filed against "Trump 2.0's" executive actions and Cabinet members' decisions.15 This volume of litigation is described as "unprecedented" when compared to recent presidents.15
While the exact cost of defending these 328 lawsuits is currently "unknown" 15, the sheer number of cases suggests a substantial cumulative expense for legal defense. The average hourly rate for lawyers in the U.S. is $341, and for attorneys in Washington, D.C., it is $462 per hour.15 Even at these average rates, the cumulative cost for hundreds of cases would be immense, involving significant expenditures for government attorneys, external counsel, and associated legal processes.
Beyond federal-level challenges, Trump's tariffs also imposed significant costs that led to legal disputes. State and local governments in 12 states were projected to face at least $3.4 billion per year in additional costs due to these tariffs, indicating substantial legal challenges and associated defense costs at the state level.17
The unprecedented volume of litigation against Trump's executive actions and policies placed a significant strain on the federal and state legal systems. This constant legal friction represents a substantial, though often unquantified, taxpayer cost for defending policies that were frequently challenged for their legality or constitutionality. It signifies a "frictional cost" to governance, where policy implementation is met with immediate and widespread legal resistance, leading to increased legal expenditures rather than efficient policy execution. The tariffs, for example, not only imposed direct financial burdens on households and governments but also necessitated legal defense, further adding to the public's financial outlay.
C. Personal Legal Fees and Potential Taxpayer Reimbursement
Donald Trump's personal legal battles have incurred substantial costs, estimated by the Brennan Center for Justice to exceed $100 million.18 These costs have been primarily funded by campaign entities such as the Make America Great Again (MAGA) PAC ($30 million) and the Save America PAC ($70 million), rather than direct taxpayer funds.18
However, a newly signed Georgia law (Senate Bill 244) introduces a mechanism by which Fulton County taxpayers could potentially cover Trump's legal expenses in the ongoing 2020 election case.19 His legal bill in that specific Georgia case reached approximately $4.2 million by the end of 2024.19 This reimbursement would only occur if the charges are dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct.19 This scenario creates a direct causal link where, under specific legal conditions, the taxpayer could become responsible for legal defense costs against charges related to actions taken while in office or during a political campaign. This mechanism shifts the financial risk of legal defense from the individual, even a wealthy one, to the public, potentially influencing future behaviors or defense strategies if the ultimate cost can be externalized.
It is important to differentiate these potential taxpayer costs from Trump's personal financial liabilities in other lawsuits. For instance, he has been ordered to pay over $88 million in E. Jean Carroll defamation and sexual battery cases, and $355 million plus interest in a fraud case (currently on appeal).18 These are personal financial liabilities and are not directly borne by taxpayers unless a specific reimbursement mechanism, like the Georgia law, is triggered.
D. Impeachment Proceedings Costs
Donald Trump faced two impeachment proceedings during and immediately after his presidency. Notably, his personal legal fees for both impeachment trials were explicitly not covered by taxpayers.20 Instead, these costs were paid by the Republican National Committee (RNC) and other campaign funds.20
The majority of other costs related to impeachment proceedings, such as the salaries of members of Congress, senators, and their staff, are considered "baked in" to existing operational accounts and budgets.20 While the House Judiciary Committee did engage two consulting lawyers, their fees were paid from existing operations accounts, not through additional taxpayer appropriations.20 Estimates for the first impeachment trial vary, with Roll Call estimating $1.83 million, the Heritage Foundation putting the price tag at $3.06 million (including salaries of lawmakers and staff), and Yahoo! Finance estimating $11.5 million.22
Although direct legal fees for impeachment were not taxpayer-funded, the substantial operational costs and the significant diversion of legislative resources for two impeachment proceedings represent a considerable, albeit often absorbed within existing budgets, taxpayer burden. The occurrence of two impeachment trials, each demanding extensive congressional attention and resources, indicates a period of intense political conflict that consumed public funds and diverted focus from other legislative priorities. These costs, even if not requiring "extra cash," signify a substantial expenditure of public resources on processes directly related to alleged presidential misconduct. They underscore the financial implications of political polarization and the mechanisms of accountability within the U.S. system, where the process of holding a president accountable carries a tangible cost to taxpayers.
Summary of Taxpayer-Borne Legal and Investigation Costs
III. Financial Impact of the January 6th Insurrection
The January 6th, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol represents a singular event with profound financial consequences for American taxpayers, stemming directly from the actions and rhetoric that preceded and accompanied it.
A. Property Damage and Capitol Security Enhancements
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated the true cost to taxpayers for the January 6th insurrection at a staggering $2.7 billion.23 This comprehensive figure encompasses a range of expenditures, including direct property damage to the Capitol building, operational expenses incurred by the Capitol Police, the District of Columbia, and various federal agencies, as well as significant investments in improving security measures in the aftermath of the attack.23
The Capitol complex itself sustained nearly $3 million in direct property damage, which included broken windows, splintered doors, and paintings stained with pepper spray and tear gas.23 In response to the attack, a bipartisan emergency security funding package was signed into law by President Biden in July 2021. This package specifically allocated $521 million to reimburse the National Guard for their deployment, $70 million to support the Capitol Police (covering overtime, retention bonuses, and hazard pay), and $300 million for Capitol complex security upgrades, such as replacements to windows and doors, and the installation of new security cameras.23 Beyond this direct emergency funding, heightened security measures around the Capitol in the immediate aftermath of January 6th reportedly cost an additional $519 million.22
The $2.7 billion taxpayer cost of the January 6th insurrection is not merely a repair bill; it is a profound financial manifestation of political instability and a direct consequence of the rhetoric and actions that incited the event. This massive expenditure highlights the direct financial toll of political extremism and challenges to democratic processes. It signifies that the public is not only paying for the immediate damage but also for the long-term security measures necessary to prevent recurrence. This is a clear example of how political actions can translate into tangible, large-scale financial liabilities for the state and its citizens.
B. Unreimbursed Restitution due to Pardons
A significant aspect of the financial burden related to January 6th stems from executive actions that directly impacted restitution payments. President Trump issued a blanket pardon to over 1,500 individuals charged in the January 6th insurrection.23 These pardons directly mean that convicted rioters are no longer legally required to pay their court-ordered restitutions, much of which was owed directly to the Architect of the Capitol for the damages inflicted.23
Prior to these pardons, only a small fraction of the owed restitution had been repaid by offenders. A June 2024 CBS News investigation found that only $437,000, or just 15%, of the nearly $3 million owed for property damage had been recovered.23 Adding to the taxpayer's burden, some rioters who had paid even a portion of their restitution have reportedly come forward to demand reimbursement.23
Trump's pardons for January 6th rioters directly shifted the financial burden of property damage and restitution from the perpetrators to the taxpayers. This executive decision directly caused a quantifiable financial cost to the public by absolving individuals of their financial obligations and immediately transferring that liability to the national treasury. This action not only imposes a financial cost but also carries a significant ethical and moral dimension by undermining accountability for violent acts against the government. It sends a message that certain actions, when politically aligned, can be absolved of financial consequences, which impacts the rule of law and public perception of justice.
Quantifiable Costs Related to the January 6th Insurrection
IV. Broader Fiscal and Ethical Considerations (Quantifiable Aspects)
Beyond the specific incidents of travel, legal battles, and the insurrection, Donald Trump's presidency also had broader fiscal and ethical implications that translated into significant, albeit sometimes less direct, costs for U.S. taxpayers.
A. Federal Spending Increases and Budget Deficits during Trump's Presidency
Despite campaign promises to cut spending, the U.S. federal government's expenditures increased substantially during Donald Trump's presidency. In his first 100 days alone, federal spending was over $200 billion more compared to the same period in the previous year.25 This trend continued throughout his term, leading to a significant increase in projected national debt. When Trump left office, the projected budget deficits for the 2017-2027 period stood at $13.9 trillion, which was $3.9 trillion higher than the $10.0 trillion projected when he entered office.26
Trump signed or enacted $7.8 trillion in new initiatives over the decade.26 This figure is particularly noteworthy given that he served only a single four-year term, compared to President Obama's $5.0 trillion over eight years and President Bush's $6.9 trillion over eight years.26 The largest drivers of these new costs included pandemic relief legislation ($3.9 trillion), the 2017 tax cuts ($2.0 trillion), and legislation raising discretionary spending caps ($1.6 trillion).26 While pandemic relief was largely bipartisan, the tax cuts and increased spending caps were direct policy choices of the administration.
It is important to acknowledge that some factors partially offset these increases. Faster economic growth and technical revisions saved an estimated $3.9 trillion over the 2017-2027 decade relative to initial Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections.26 Additionally, lower projected interest rates reduced net interest costs by a staggering $2.7 trillion.26 However, these positive factors were insufficient to fully offset the increased spending, culminating in the budget deficit reaching an unprecedented $3 trillion in fiscal year 2020, accounting for 14.9% of GDP—a level only exceeded during the height of World War II.26
Beyond direct government spending, Trump's trade policies, particularly his tariffs, also imposed financial burdens on American households and businesses. These tariffs were estimated to cost the typical American household an average of $4,600 a year.27 Furthermore, state and local governments in 12 states could face at least $3.4 billion per year in additional costs due to these tariffs.17
The cumulative effect of these fiscal policies means that future taxpayers will bear the cost of servicing a significantly larger national debt. This represents a long-term financial burden that transcends immediate "frivolous" spending and impacts future generations. The increased national debt translates into a structural, intergenerational transfer of wealth to cover increased government liabilities. The tariffs, while a policy choice, effectively acted as a hidden tax on consumers and businesses, directly increasing costs for households and state/local governments.
B. Taxpayer Spending at Trump Businesses due to Conflicts of Interest (Emoluments)
A significant area of concern regarding taxpayer funds and ethical governance during Donald Trump's presidency involved the direct channeling of government and foreign funds into his private businesses. The Washington Post reported that Trump's properties billed the government "at least $2.5 million".9 American Oversight, through FOIA requests and litigation, identified dozens of specific instances of taxpayer spending at Trump properties, totaling approximately $17,500.28 The Department of Defense alone spent at least $974,000 at Trump-owned properties between July 2017 and November 2019, including over $270,000 at Trump National Doral Miami.29
These expenditures are not merely incidental costs; they represent direct payments from public coffers to businesses owned by the sitting President. This practice raised significant concerns regarding the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits federal officials from receiving gifts or money from foreign governments without congressional permission. A report by the House Oversight Committee revealed that Trump's businesses received at least $7.8 million from officials and governments of 20 countries during his presidency.30 This figure covered only two years, suggesting it is likely an undercount of the total.30
Furthermore, payments from federal agencies, such as the Secret Service (as detailed in Section I.B.), and from state and local governments to Trump's businesses while he was in office have been cited as violations of the Domestic Emoluments Clause.10 The documented instances of overcharging the Secret Service for hotel rooms at Trump's D.C. hotel, for example, directly illustrate how these arrangements provided financial benefits to the President's private enterprise.10
While not direct taxpayer money, the significant political spending at Trump properties contributes to the broader picture of financial conflicts of interest. Political committees spent $676,457 at Trump properties since the 2024 election.31 Overall, political groups spent $23.2 million at Trump properties since his 2015 campaign announcement, and $9.7 million since he took office.32 This pattern suggests that the presidency was actively used as a vehicle for personal enrichment, creating an environment where access and influence could be perceived as purchasable. This undermines the democratic principle that public office is for public service, not private gain. The "cost" here extends beyond the quantifiable dollars to the erosion of ethical norms, public trust, and the perception of fair governance, which has long-term implications for democratic institutions.15
Conclusion
The financial impact of Donald Trump's presidency and subsequent activities on U.S. taxpayers is multifaceted and substantial, encompassing direct expenditures, legal liabilities, and broader fiscal shifts. While a precise, all-encompassing total is challenging to calculate due to the dynamic nature of ongoing legal processes and data limitations, the available evidence points to significant costs across various categories.
Travel and security expenses for the President and his family, both during and after his term, notably exceeded those of predecessors, largely due to frequent visits to private properties. The documented instances of the Secret Service being charged exorbitant rates at Trump-owned businesses represent a direct funneling of taxpayer money into the former President's private enterprises, raising serious ethical questions about the exploitation of public office for personal financial gain.
The extensive legal landscape surrounding Donald Trump has also imposed a considerable burden. Special counsel investigations into his post-presidency actions have cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. The unprecedented volume of lawsuits challenging his administration's policies, while unquantified in total, undoubtedly consumed vast government resources for legal defense. Furthermore, the potential for taxpayers in specific jurisdictions, such as Fulton County, Georgia, to cover personal legal fees, highlights a concerning precedent where the public might bear the financial consequences of a former official's personal or political legal battles. While his impeachment proceedings did not directly use taxpayer funds for his defense, the operational costs borne by Congress represent a significant allocation of public resources towards accountability processes.
Perhaps the most stark and quantifiable cost is that of the January 6th Capitol insurrection, estimated at $2.7 billion. This figure, covering property damage, enhanced security, and law enforcement expenses, is a direct financial manifestation of political instability. The subsequent pardons issued by the former President, which absolved rioters of their court-ordered restitution, directly transferred millions in damages from the perpetrators to the American taxpayer, further underscoring the financial consequences of executive actions.
Beyond these direct outlays, the analysis reveals broader fiscal implications, including a substantial increase in projected national debt and an unprecedented budget deficit during Trump's term, driven by policy choices like tax cuts and increased spending. The continued documented instances of taxpayer and foreign government funds being directed to Trump's private businesses highlight a systemic pattern of conflicts of interest. This pattern not only represents a quantifiable financial cost but also carries a profound, unquantifiable cost to public trust and the integrity of democratic governance.
In summary, the financial data available indicates a significant and varied taxpayer burden associated with Donald Trump's time in and out of office. These costs stem from a combination of policy decisions, personal choices regarding official conduct, and the direct consequences of events and legal challenges that occurred during his tenure and beyond.
//Peace
Quoted works:
United States presidential vacations - Wikipedia, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_vacations
Has Donald Trump's Personal Travel Cost Taxpayers $10.7 Million? - Yahoo, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-personal-travel-cost-174510608.html
GAO-19-178, PRESIDENTIAL TRAVEL: Secret Service and DOD Need to Ensure That Expenditure Reports Are Prepared and Submitted to Co, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-178.pdf
GAO-19-178 Highlights, PRESIDENTIAL TRAVEL: Secret Service and DOD Need to Ensure That Expenditure Reports Are Prepared and Subm, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-178-highlights.pdf
Secret Service costs for presidential travel continue to mount - Georgetown Institute for the Study of Markets and Ethics, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://gisme.georgetown.edu/publications/secret-service-costs-for-presidential-travel-continue-to-mount/
Trump's Golfing has Cost Taxpayers $102 Million, Just $12.7 Million Behind Obama's Travel During Entire Presidency: Report - Newsweek, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/trump-golf-102-million-report-1432550
New Report Shows Taxpayers Foot the Bill for President Trump's $1 Million Weekend Golf Trip to His Resort in Scotland, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/new-report-shows-taxpayers-foot-the-bill-for-president-trump-s-1-million-weekend
The Secret Service spent nearly $2 million at Trump properties - CREW, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/the-secret-service-spent-nearly-2-million-at-trump-properties/
Trump Rips Off Taxpayers | National Urban League, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://nul.org/news/trump-rips-taxpayers
Oversight Democrats' New Report Proves Trump Used His D.C. Hotel to Take Unconstitutional Domestic Emoluments, Fleecing the Taxpayers, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/oversight-democrats-new-report-proves-trump-used-his-dc-hotel-take
When Eric Trump stayed at Trump Hotels, Secret Service paid above government rate limits, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/when-eric-trump-stayed-at-trump-hotels-secret-service-paid-above-government-rate-limits/
Secret Service spends at least $1.3m protecting Trump since he left office | The Independent, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-secret-service-protection-cost-b2025895.html
60 Minutes Overtime Secret Service paid over $12 million for a year's protection of 2 Trump advisers from potential Iranian threats - Congress.gov, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117528/documents/HHRG-118-GO00-20240722-SD077.pdf
Donald Trump investigation costs US over $50 million! - The ..., hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/global-trends/donald-trump-investigation-costs-us-over-50-million/articleshow/115728021.cms
Legal costs and risks of Trump 2.0's 328 lawsuits - Times Republican, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.timesrepublican.com/opinion/columnists/2025/05/legal-costs-and-risks-of-trump-2-0s-328-lawsuits/
The Legal Costs and Risks of Trump's 328 Lawsuits - The Fulcrum, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://thefulcrum.us/rule-of-law/trump-lawsuits-costs-2025
Attorney General Mayes Seeks New Court Order to Stop Trump Administration's Illegal Tariffs | Arizona Attorney General, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mayes-seeks-new-court-order-stop-trump-administrations-illegal
Trump's Legal Bills Revealed: How Much He Spends and Where the Money Comes From, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/trumps-legal-bills-revealed-how-much-he-spends-and-where-money-comes
Taxpayers in this US State may have to foot $4.2 million of Donald Trump's legal bill — Here's why - The Economic Times, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/taxpayers-in-this-us-state-may-have-to-foot-4-2-million-of-donald-trumps-legal-bill-heres-why/articleshow/121238075.cms
Do taxpayers cover President Trump's legal fees during impeachment trial? - YouTube, hämtad juni 12, 2025,
VERIFY: Do taxpayers have to cover Former President Trump's legal fees in upcoming impeachment trial - YouTube, hämtad juni 12, 2025,
How much will Trump impeachment trial cost? - Fox Business, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/how-much-will-trump-impeachment-trial-cost
March 24, 2025 Mr. Thomas E. Austin Architect of the Capitol SB-15 U.S. Capitol U.S. Capitol Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear - The Committee on Oversight and Accountability Democrats |, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2025-03-24-gec-to-aoc-thomas-austin-re-jan-6-restitution.pdf
President Trump's Pardons Stick Taxpayers With the Bill for January ..., hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/president-trumps-pardons-stick-taxpayers-bill-january-6-attack-oversight
Despite Trump's promised cuts, U.S. spent more than $200 billion more in first 100 days than last year - CBS News, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-promised-cuts-spent-200-billion-more/
Trump's Fiscal Legacy: A Comprehensive Overview of Spending, Taxes, and Deficits, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://manhattan.institute/article/trumps-fiscal-legacy-a-comprehensive-overview-of-spending-taxes-and-deficits
Trump's Budget Is A Betrayal Of His Promise To Working-Class Americans, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://nul.org/news/trumps-budget-betrayal-his-promise-working-class-americans
Tracking Taxpayer Spending at Trump Properties - American Oversight, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://americanoversight.org/tracking-taxpayer-spending-at-trump-properties/
Defense Department Spent Nearly $1 Million at Trump Properties from July 2017 to November 2019, Records Obtained by American Oversight Reveal, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://americanoversight.org/defense-department-spent-nearly-1-million-at-trump-properties-from-july-2017-to-november-2019-records-obtained-by-american-oversight-reveal/
New Congressional Report: Trump Businesses Received $7.8 Million from Foreign Governments During His Presidency - American Oversight, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://americanoversight.org/new-congressional-report-trump-businesses-received-7-8-million-from-foreign-governments-during-his-presidency/
Political committees have spent $675K at Trump properties since Trump's reelection - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/political-committees-have-spent-675k-at-trump-properties-since-trumps-reelection/
President Trump's 3400 conflicts of interest - CREW, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trumps-3400-conflicts-of-interest/
Trump's Authoritarian Spectacle: Corruption in US Governance and What Nonprofits Can Do About It - Non Profit News, hämtad juni 12, 2025, https://nonprofitquarterly.org/trumps-authoritarian-spectacle-corruption-in-us-governance-and-what-nonprofits-can-do-about-it/
waste fraud and abuse >grifter.. trump
thanks Hans, you put alot of time & research into this piece. it really layed out expenses i never even considered. & ofc more grifting of We The People. thank you for all the work you did here.