Fact Check: City Officials Expect Low Chance of Trump Campaign Paying the Bill
What We Know
Recent reports indicate that several cities are still awaiting payment from former President Donald Trump's campaign for costs associated with public safety during his rallies. Specifically, the city of Erie, Pennsylvania, claims Trump owes over $40,000 for events held in 2018 and 2023, and this is part of a larger total exceeding $750,000 owed to various municipalities across the country for similar expenses (NBC News).
The Trump campaign has not formally acknowledged these debts, with campaign officials suggesting that inquiries regarding local law enforcement costs should be directed to the Secret Service, which typically requests local assistance during campaign events (NBC News). However, the Secret Service has stated that it lacks a mechanism to reimburse local governments for their support during these events (NBC News).
Cities like El Paso, Texas, are seeking substantial amounts, with one invoice exceeding $569,200 for costs incurred during a 2019 rally (NBC News). Other cities, including Spokane, Washington, and Mesa, Arizona, are also pursuing unpaid bills, with some invoices dating back several years (NBC News, Public Integrity).
Analysis
The claim that city officials expect a low chance of the Trump campaign paying its bills is supported by multiple sources. The ongoing pattern of unpaid invoices across various cities suggests a systemic issue with the campaign's financial responsibilities regarding local law enforcement during rallies. For instance, the city of Lebanon, Ohio, sent a bill of $16,191 for police services, which remains unpaid despite follow-up reminders (Public Integrity).
Moreover, the lack of formal agreements between the Trump campaign and the municipalities complicates the situation. Many cities dispatched police officers based on the belief that public safety required it, often at the request of the Secret Service, but without contracts that would legally bind the campaign to reimburse these costs (Public Integrity). This ambiguity raises questions about the campaign's accountability and willingness to pay.
The credibility of the sources reporting this information is high, as they include established news organizations like NBC News and Public Integrity, which have documented the financial disputes through interviews with local officials and municipal records. These reports highlight a consistent narrative of unpaid bills and local officials expressing skepticism about the likelihood of receiving payment.
Conclusion
The verdict on the claim that city officials expect a low chance of the Trump campaign paying the bill is True. The evidence indicates that multiple cities are facing significant unpaid bills from the Trump campaign, and the campaign's responses suggest little intention to settle these debts. The ongoing disputes, lack of formal agreements, and the campaign's historical reluctance to pay similar bills reinforce the expectation among city officials that they may not see reimbursement.
