Trump has received nearly $1m of US taxpayers’ money in government hotel bills, says report

Resorts in Florida and New Jersey have apparently pulled in thousands of dollars by charging normal room rates to Secret Service and others

Donald Trump’s company has received more than $1m from US taxpayers since the president took office – much of it in the form of hotel bills racked up by staffers and secret service agents accompanying the president on various visits.

Records seen by the Washington Post indicate that US taxpayers have paid for well over 1,000 nightly stays at Trump properties, including 950 at Trump’s New Jersey golf club and more than 500 at at Mar-a-Lago in Florida.

The president’s son Eric has previously claimed that government employees only stay at Trump properties at a minimum rate – “like, cost for housekeeping”.

But according to the data compiled by the Post, which stretches back to Mr Trump’s first month in office, show government departments and employees routinely paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for rooms, and well above standard industry operating costs.

The Trump Organisation has been contacted for comment.

The Trump hotel business has been considered a conflict of interest risk since before Mr Trump’s inauguration. A particular bone of contention is the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, which has been the subject of various lawsuits.

The hotel is situated in a building leased from the government’s General Services Administration – an agency whose head is appointed by the president.

The Trump International is also routinely used by delegations visiting the US, and foreign governments have spent tens of thousands of dollars on rooms there – potentially constituting a violation of the constitution’s emoluments clause.

The Trump Organisation recently asked the federal government for rent relief as the hotel’s business all but disappeared during the coronavirus pandemic, with Eric Trump asking that their landlords “treat us like everyone else”. Democrats on the House of Representatives’ oversight committee said the request should be denied as a “blatant conflict of interest”.