The Trump Administration Has Devoted at Least $1.6 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars to Vanity Projects

Since the start of his second term, President Donald Trump’s administration has spent or plans to spend at least $1.6 billion of public funding on vanity projects, according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress. Another recent report estimates that the Trump administration’s projects to benefit the president or burnish his image have cost $1.8 billion. This higher total accounts for private as well as taxpayer spending; CAP’s analysis focuses on federal spending on public needs, so only publicly reported federal spending on vanity projects is included.

Examples of projects include the refurbishment of a gifted jet from Qatar, gilded decorations and statues both inside the White House and on the grounds, the building of a monument to President Trump, self-promotional TV ads, massive banners of the president’s face draped on federal buildings, and a new White House ballroom. This reckless spending comes as Americans struggle to afford health care, groceries, and their utility bills amid federal cuts to health care, food assistance, and more. The following analysis itemizes each project and its respective cost, including only projects that achieve little purpose besides promoting President Trump’s personal image or brand that have been or will be paid for using taxpayer dollars.

A study of data from 2007 to 2009 showed the median full-time, full-year American worker will earn $1.7 million, in total, throughout their lifetime. This is equivalent to $2.66 million in 2026, adjusted for inflation. In the past 21 months, the Trump administration has already spent, or made plans to spend, more than 620 times that amount in taxpayer dollars on vanity projects.

All of CAP’s calculations reflect a more conservative estimate wherever possible. (See the methodology for details on calculations.) Using the maximum estimates of each of these charges, the Trump administration’s total vanity projects would have cost more than $2.3 billion. This difference can mainly be attributed to the ranges in the estimated cost to renovate the Qatari jet so it can be used as Air Force One, the estimated total cost of the National Garden of American Heroes featuring 250 statues, the potential total cost of the June 2025 military parade that marked the birthdays of both the U.S. Army and President Trump, and the estimated cost of the “Arc de Trump” monument. The calculation does not account for projects where there is not reliable reporting on the public cost. This includes, but is not limited to, costs associated with President Trump’s planned Lincoln Memorial Promenade, the 47 maple trees the Trump administration intends to plant in Lafayette Square, and his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario. It was estimated the renaming to “Gulf of America” would cost “less than $500,000 over the 2025-2030 period,” but a harder total was never revealed, and the estimate cannot be directly transferred to Lake Ontario’s renaming to “Lake America.” The total also does not account for projects that appear to promote President Trump’s personal image but do not have a reported cost to the taxpayer. This includes repainting Air Force One to his preferred color scheme and adding his signature and face to U.S. currency.

The analysis will detail how the billions spent on vanity projects could have been used to adequately fund numerous federal programs; provide free school meals for public school students; aid health care, food, and housing affordability; and offer many other benefits to the American people.

To help conceptualize the massive spending and the Trump administration’s immense waste of taxpayer dollars, below are examples of what the government can do with $1.6 billion on both state and federal levels.

The $1.6 billion in taxpayer dollars that the Trump administration has spent or will spend on vanity projects could have made massive national impacts if spent differently.

• The national public school meal debt for K-12 students in public schools is about $271.61 million annually. Students who are unable to pay for school lunch can face penalties determined by their school and in some cases their family can be referred to social services for the unpaid meal debt. The $1.6 billion the Trump administration spent on vanity projects could have covered national meal debt for more than six years, removing a source of stress and shame for American children across the nation.
• In early July 2026, President Trump denied $227 million in federal disaster aid to four Democratic-led states. The Trump administration’s vanity project money could have funded the disaster relief requested by those states more than seven times.
• In a July 2026 filing with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the Trump administration’s Department of Energy admitted to canceling $7.5 billion in clean energy grants to blue states, “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state.” The Trump administration’s vanity project funds could have covered 20 percent of those grants.
• Seventy-six percent of American adults view the cost of child care as a “major problem.” The average price of child care in the United States is about $13,184 nationally. This money could have paid for one year of child care costs for more than 125,211 American children.
• The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) spends $1,187.18 per month on a housing choice voucher to subsidize one unit of low-income housing and bring it to an affordable level. The Trump administration’s vanity project money could have provided more than 115,875 families with one year of federally subsidized housing.
• In fiscal year 2025, it cost the federal government an average of $187.94 to offer a person one month of SNAP benefits. The Trump administration’s vanity project money could have provided 731,965 Americans with SNAP benefits for one year.
• Congress voted to pass the Trump administration’s rescission that included eliminating $535 million per year in funding for public broadcasting. The Trump administration’s vanity project funds alone could support fully funding public radio and TV programming for more than three years. 
• Raising a child in the United States for 18 years costs an estimated $303,418. The Trump administration’s vanity money could have funded the full upbringing of 5,440 American children.

It becomes even clearer on a state level just how much the Trump administration’s spending habits have taken from the American people. To illustrate what the federal government could do on a state level with this money, this report focuses on two necessities for every American: food and health care.

Fourteen million children in the United States live in homes that are “food insecure,” meaning that their household has limited or inadequate access to food. Teachers report food insecurity can negatively affect student concentration and can increase behavioral issues. When students have access to free school meals it can improve their health, attendance, and educational attainment. This report shares how many years the Trump administration’s vanity project spending could pay for school breakfast, school lunch, and both school breakfast and lunch for every single public school student in each state. (see Figure 3)

Twelve percent of the U.S. population relied on SNAP benefits in 2024. On top of reducing national food insecurity, SNAP benefits stimulate local economies—each dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.79 in local economic activity—and reduce Medicaid costs. When congressional Republicans passed the OBBBA, they shifted the costs of SNAP onto states and increased work requirements. This move has forced 5 million Americans off SNAP since the law’s enactment. This report shares how many years the Trump administration’s vanity spending could fund the SNAP shortfall created by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans’ OBBBA.

Twenty-eight percent of American adults say that they have postponed or skipped getting necessary health care in the past year due to the cost. Four in 10 American adults also say that they have not taken medication as prescribed in the past year due to high costs. Health insurance can make real impacts in taxpayers’ lives and the Trump administration’s spending shows the U.S. government has the funding to offer more people health insurance, but the Trump administration chooses to use it for other purposes. This report shares how many years the Trump administration’s vanity spending could have paid for a full Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace plan for every uninsured person in all 50 states. (see Figure 4)

The enhanced premium tax credits (ePTCs) for Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace health plans expired at the end of 2025. The House of Representatives voted 230-196 to extend the credits through 2028 in January 2026, but the Senate did not act to extend the credits. President Trump openly advocated against extending the credits, saying in November 2025, “I’d rather not extend them at all.” In 2024, the ePTCs saved enrollees an average of $705 annually. After they expired, average net premiums increased by 58 percent. This report shares how many years the Trump administration’s vanity spending could instead pay for the resulting ePTC funding shortfall in each state, making health care affordable for millions of Americans.

A Washington Post/Ipsos poll shows 65 percent of Americans are either “dissatisfied” or “upset” about the Trump administration’s vanity projects. The poll tracked reaction to some of the Trump administration’s more well-known projects, including the White House ballroom, the “triumphal arch,” and renovating the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. In October 2025, after the public reacted to initial images of East Wing demolition to build a ballroom, the White House released a statement defending the move.

The statement cited examples of past presidents “renovating, expanding, and modernizing the White House to meet the needs of the present day.” The listed examples in no way compare with the excess exhibited by the Trump administration’s use of taxpayer dollars. The statement includes former President Bill Clinton’s “restoration and refurbishment of the Executive Mansion.” This refurbishment cost $396,429.46 according to the Clinton White House archives and was entirely paid for by private donations. The Clintons elected not to use the $50,000 in taxpayer dollars appropriated by Congress for White House renovations.

From 1948 to 1952, President Harry S. Truman performed a total reconstruction on the White House’s interior as the building was determined to be on the “verge of collapse.” The project gutted the building but preserved much of the facade, ultimately costing $5.7 million. Adjusted for inflation, the project would have cost roughly $80.3 million today. President Truman said he believed it was worth repairing the building given its extreme state of disrepair, but still complained that the cost was excessive. The Trump administration’s vanity projects have cost the American taxpayer more than 20 times what it cost Truman to gut and rebuild the entire White House.

As Americans reacted to the Trump administration’s ballroom spending, a claim surfaced across social media accounts that former President Barack Obama spent $376 million in taxpayer dollars on a White House renovation. On X, users argued the backlash against the Trump administration’s ballroom spending was partisan because President Obama spent more in taxpayer dollars on a White House renovation, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) boosted the claims on his X page. The line item highlighted by these users references a $376 million White House refurbishment that was approved under George W. Bush’s administration and included HVAC and wiring repair, among other structural updates.

The current administration may claim otherwise, but the Trump administration’s vanity projects, both in spending scale and in project type, are unprecedented by past presidential administrations.

CAP’s analysis offers a snapshot of the Trump administration’s misuse of taxpayer dollars through concrete projects. The number is lower than it could be because this analysis uses only conservative estimates of all totals.

The Washington Post reported the Trump administration plans to spend at least $900 million in primarily taxpayer funds for construction projects on the White House grounds. CAP’s analysis uses a lower number because it takes into account only White House projects that are paid for exclusively with taxpayer funding.

This total also does not account for Secret Service renovations of the Trump administration’s ballroom. The White House budget office released more than $351 million in taxpayer dollars to fund Secret Service measures in the Trump administration’s ballroom. This amount likely went to support construction of the bunker that the Trump administration plans to build beneath the ballroom. The president has described the bunker as a “desperately needed National Security structure.” However, former officials say the White House’s existing bunker, completed during the Obama administration and built to withstand a nuclear blast, undercuts the Trump administration’s argument.

The estimated $1.6 billion also does not account for more abstract spending issues that could cost tens of billions more, such as the Trump administration’s plans to build a fleet of military battleships in Trump’s name, a reported effort to rename a new aircraft carrier after the president, or his “obsession” with reverting back to decades-old steam catapult technology on aircraft carriers that are used to slingshot planes off the ship.

CAP’s analysis does not explore what taxpayers have lost due to diverted funding. The National Park System has an estimated backlog of $24 billion in deferred maintenance needs, and the Trump administration’s spending habits have only further exacerbated this problem. The Trump administration has already slashed millions from the National Parks budget, and millions more in taxpayer dollars meant for the nation’s public parks—including visitor fees—are being shifted to pay for the vanity projects. As the Trump administration pulls public funding to support another pet project, park wait lines increase and habitat restoration decreases.

Although the tally appears egregious and extreme, it does not offer the full account of the Trump administration’s extravagance and waste, which will not be fully understood until more receipts are disclosed. As the tally rises, the list of what the Trump administration could have given the American people grows longer. It seems that serving the American public is not the Trump administration’s No. 1 priority.

A recent analysis of President Trump’s public events and speeches from the first seven months of 2026 shows he spoke of his construction projects at 84 appearances over 66 days. The only topic he mentioned more often was Iran and the Trump administration’s deeply unpopular war there. New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman recently said that 70 percent of President Trump’s mindshare goes to gilding, construction, renaming, renovation, and tribute projects. Meanwhile, wages are not keeping up with inflation and according to a poll from June 2026, 95 percent of Americans believe the United States is suffering an “affordability crisis.”

The full total of the Trump administration’s vanity spending is not yet visible, but it is clear: The American people deserve better stewards of their tax dollars.

The vanity project dollar amounts are all sourced and compiled from public reporting. Amounts are reflective of the more conservative option whenever possible. The public reporting sources are hyperlinked in the item descriptors.

The spending scale graphic uses data included in a report from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. The authors used the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator to adjust $1.7 million in lifetime earnings to the dollar equivalent at the time of the release of the Georgetown report. The data in Georgetown’s study are based on a survey ending in 2009, so the authors calculated inflation on $1.7 million based on its buying power in the middle of the year (July 2009).

The national trade-offs section of this article uses public data sources. To estimate the cost of national school meal debt, the authors used the amount provided by the Education Data Initiative in a 2026 article. The authors then divided the Trump administration’s vanity total by the public school meal debt annual total to find the number of years his spending could have covered school lunch debt.

To estimate the number of times this amount could have covered federal disaster aid for Democratic-led states, the authors used public reporting by Politico, which stated that the Trump administration rejected $227 million in disaster aid requests from Democratic-led states. The authors then divided the Trump administration’s vanity total by the cost of the disaster aid.

To estimate the number of children that could be raised in the United States by the money the Trump administration spent on vanity projects, the authors used a 2026 analysis by LendingTree, which sources data from the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Care.com, KFF, and the Internal Revenue Service, mainly from 2024. The authors then divided the Trump administration’s vanity total by the cost to raise one child in 2026.

To estimate how many children could receive one year of child care, the authors used an analysis of 2025 data by Child Care Aware of America. The authors then divided the Trump administration’s vanity spending total by the annual price of child care in the United States for one year.

To estimate how many U.S. households could receive one year of federally subsidized housing assistance with this amount, the authors used 2026 data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the per-unit cost of a housing choice voucher. The authors multiplied this number by 12 to determine HUD’s cost per year of one housing voucher. The authors then divided the Trump administration’s vanity total by the annual cost per year.

To estimate the number of SNAP participants who could have received benefits for one year, the authors used data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that states the average federal spending per SNAP participant was $187.94 in 2025. Annually, this is $2,255.28 spent by the federal government for each individual’s SNAP participation. The authors then divided the Trump administration’s vanity total by the annual amount spent by the federal government for each individual’s SNAP participation.

To estimate how many times this amount could pay for the clean energy grants canceled by the Trump administration, the authors divided the vanity total by $7.56 billion, the cost of the terminated clean energy grants.

The state trade-offs section of this report also uses public reporting to determine totals.

For the school meal totals, the authors used public school enrollment data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Elementary/Secondary Information System’s table generator for the 2024-2025 school year, which uses data from the Common Core of Data (CCD). The authors then added 2024-2025 school enrollment data from the Bureau of Indian Education, also from the CCD, similar to past analysis by the Center for American Progress. To estimate the cost of breakfast and lunch for one student in each state, the authors used data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the federal reimbursement rates for free breakfast and lunches. The authors assumed schools would receive the 9-cent additional performance-based reimbursement, similar to past analysis by the Center for American Progress. The authors assumed there would be 180 days in a school year and multiplied the total school enrollment by the federal cost for one school meal by 180. Then the authors divided the Trump administration’s vanity total by the cost of supplying one lunch, one breakfast, and both breakfast and lunch for every public school student in each state for one year.

To calculate the number of years that the cost of the Trump administration’s vanity projects could pay for states’ SNAP funding shortfalls caused by the OBBBA, the authors used data from the Food Research & Action Center. The authors divided the Trump administration’s vanity projects total by the total additional cost to states created by the OBBBA’s SNAP funding cuts.

To find the number of years that the cost of the Trump administration’s vanity projects could pay the consumer cost of an ACA marketplace plan for every uninsured person in each state, the authors used census population data from the U.S. Census Bureau as of July 2025. The authors multiplied the population totals by the percentage of people in that state who lack health insurance, according to 2024 data from KFF, to find the state’s total uninsured population. The authors then multiplied that amount by the average monthly cost of an ACA benchmark premium in each state, according to KFF’s most updated data, and multiplied that by 12 to find the annual cost. The authors then divided the Trump administration’s vanity project total by the cost of one year of ACA premiums for every uninsured person in the state.

To find the number of years that the cost of the Trump administration’s vanity projects could pay for the lapsed enhanced premium tax credits, the authors used data from the Commonwealth Fund to find the federal funding loss from the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits in each state. The authors then divided the Trump administration’s vanity total by the estimated total for each state.