Request for Investigation Into Taxpayer Costs of Trump’s Golf Trips

Thank you for your response and for highlighting your commitment to cutting waste in Washington, especially through GAO oversight and your “Squeal Award” initiative. I appreciate your efforts—even without service on the Appropriations Committee—to hold the federal government fiscally accountable. However, recent data reveals a troubling pattern of taxpayer-funded expenses tied to former President Trump’s golf trips to resorts he owns. Updated figures show that during the first 184 days of Trump’s second term, he played golf on 43 separate days, representing about 23 percent of his days in office. Those outings are estimated to have cost taxpayers over 26 million dollars so far in his second term alone. These figures add to the spending from his first term, when Trump’s golf trips—mostly at his own properties—cost more than 151 million dollars through travel, security, and lodging expenses. Altogether, combining both terms, the cumulative taxpayer burden likely exceeds 175 million dollars, and may be higher when accounting for international travel and local law enforcement reimbursements. It is equally concerning that the Trump Organization has reportedly charged the Secret Service—and thereby taxpayers—exorbitant lodging fees at his private properties. Rates reached up to 650 dollars per night per room, with cottage rentals at 17,000 dollars per month in Bedminster, in addition to charges at Mar‑a‑Lago and Turnberry. Given your stated focus on trimming government waste, I respectfully ask: Has your office inquired into or requested a formal cost analysis of Trump’s golf outings to his personally owned properties—covering Air Force One flights, motorcade transport, Secret Service overtime, and local law enforcement reimbursements? Has your office sought documentation or an accounting of how much the Trump Organization billed the federal government or Secret Service for lodging and facilities during those visits? These outings seem to epitomize government spending that funnels directly into a sitting president’s private business interests. If GAO or other oversight entities have already reviewed these costs, I would appreciate knowing which reports include such analysis. If not, I urge you to elevate this issue—either through GAO or within your “Squeal Award” series and appropriations discussions—as an obvious example of waste and a conflict-of-interest risk. Thank you again for your leadership in holding Washington accountable. I look forward to updates from your office.