The Case Against Taxpayers Funding America’s Wealthiest Alumni

Because lawmakers have spent too much year after year, America’s gross national debt now exceeds $40 trillion. The largest drivers of spending include Social Security and major health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, whose long-term financial challenges require congressional attention.

When the federal government borrows nearly $2 trillion each year to meet its commitments, every federal program needs scrutiny for savings. This includes the generous lifetime benefits provided to a very exclusive, wealthy class of Americans: former presidents.

Under the Former Presidents Act, taxpayer dollars fund presidential pensions, staff, office space, equipment, communications, and other expenses. The benefits were created in 1958 amid claims that former President Harry Truman was struggling financially, but estate records released decades later showed that he was actually a one percenter, with wealth equivalent to over $90 million today.

Despite the law’s flawed foundation, it laid the groundwork for a cumulatively substantial taxpayer expense. Since 2000, taxpayers have spent an estimated $135 million in inflation-adjusted dollars on former presidents’ allowances and benefits. This excludes Secret Service and other security-related expenses that are not publicly reported.

This also excludes the costs of operating presidential libraries administered by the National Archives. It is worth noting that Barack Obama’s Presidential Center is not a library; his records are stored and digitally accessible at an existing Archives facility, saving taxpayers about $3 million a year.

Each former president receives an annual pension equal to the salary of a Cabinet secretary — $253,100 in 2026. President Joe Biden is also eligible for a separate congressional pension based on his 36 years in the Senate and eight years as vice president, with a benefit starting at $166,374. Combined, the dual pensions could provide him taxpayer-funded retirement benefits that top the sitting president’s annual $400,000 salary.

Offices and staff account for much of the remaining expenses. The Former Presidents Act guarantees “suitable office space” at a location chosen by each former president with no dollar limit on rent, leaving taxpayers to cover offices in high-cost areas like Washington, D.C. (Obama), Harlem in New York City (Bill Clinton), and Dallas, Texas (George W. Bush).

The roughly $5 million spent each year on former presidents’ benefits is difficult to reconcile with the substantial wealth of the recipients. According to estimates, living former presidents’ net worths range from roughly $10 million (Biden) to $40 million (G.W. Bush), $70 million (Obama), and $120 million (Clinton). President Trump, whose term ends in 2029, is worth an estimated $5.4 billion.

Moreover, former presidents can earn millions through paid speeches, publishing deals, and other private-sector ventures. For example, Biden reportedly received a roughly $10 million advance for his presidential memoir, and Obama’s undisclosed Netflix production deal was estimated at more than $50 million.

Lawmakers looking for spending reforms during the lame-duck session this November could provide relief for taxpayers by considering Senator Joni Ernst’s (R-IA) Presidential Allowance Modernization Act. Her reform would establish a $200,000 annual pension, indexed to inflation, and provide an additional allowance of up to $200,000 for office and related expenses going forward.

That allowance would be reduced dollar for dollar when a former president’s outside income exceeds $400,000. Similar legislation passed Congress with broad bipartisan support in 2016, but President Obama vetoed it just months before leaving office and becoming eligible for these perks.

Building on Ernst’s proposal, Congress could also consider whether office benefits should continue for life. At 54 and 55, Clinton and Obama were relatively young when they left office, potentially leaving taxpayers to support their offices for decades. A transition period would allow former presidents to establish their post-presidential operations before taxpayer support is gradually reduced or ended. Any new limits should also address current former presidents; applying reforms only to future officeholders would postpone meaningful savings for years.

Current accounting provides little insight into how former presidents use their taxpayer-funded offices and staff. Without that information, taxpayers cannot determine whether these resources are devoted solely to post-presidential public duties or also help arrange private commercial activities, including paid speeches, book projects, and media deals.

Legislation is not the only way these costs could decline. Given the incredible levels of federal debt, former presidents — particularly Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, who have received taxpayer-funded office support for many years — could selflessly stand up for taxpayers by voluntarily relinquishing those benefits rather than waiting for Congress to change the law.

The federal government did not reach $40 trillion in debt because of former presidents’ office expenses. But controlling the debt will require Washington to reconsider programs large and small, particularly those created to address the problems of “poor Harry Truman” and continue to pay the bills of the wealthiest Americans.

***

Demian Brady is Vice President of Research at National Taxpayers Union Foundation. This piece is based on a recently released issue brief, The Case for Limiting Former Presidents’ Lifetime Perks, which can be read at ntu.org/perks