Should the President Pay for Extra Security at His Private Properties? (H.R. 6506)

What is H.R. 6506?

(Updated October 6, 2019)

This bill would require that the president assume responsibility for the financial cost of providing additional security at property owned directly or indirectly by the president. This includes any place of business or a property that generates revenue, royalties, interest or dividends. No appropriations could be used to pay for such security aside from what the president is paid as salary.

Argument in favor

President-elect Donald Trump shouldn’t force taxpayers to pay for the extra security at his properties that is made necessary by his status when it costs half a million dollars per day.

Argument opposed

Taxpayers can afford to spend money keeping the President of the United States secure, and no other president has been asked to cover part of the cost of safeguarding them and their families.

Impact

The President of the United States.

Cost of H.R. 6506

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) introduced this bill to ensure that federal tax dollars don’t go toward paying for extra security at the president’s properties:

“It’s bad enough that Donald Trump refuses to honor a long Presidential tradition of transparency by keeping his tax returns secret. But it’s even more grotesque that, as my friend Congressman (Jose) Serrano has pointed out, New York City taxpayers already are paying $500,000 a day in security costs for Trump properties there alone. It’s just a matter of time before President-elect Trump forces the taxpayers to pick up the tab for the added security costs at his personal and business properties around the world.”

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has called the task of securing Trump Tower “unprecedented” and “profoundly challenging” and at a rate of $500,000 per day, the bill from Election Day to Trump’s inauguration has been estimated at $35 million by the NYPD.

Media:

• FloridaPolitics