A joint investigation by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune has found that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s state-funded security detail has cost taxpayers approximately $3.3 million since he took office in 2015. The review of public records indicates that out of nearly 1,000 trips taken with this detail, only about 138 could be directly connected to state business. The analysis suggests that the majority of these travel expenses, totaling roughly $553,000 in linked security costs, remain unaccounted for in terms of official purpose.
The investigation highlights a significant disparity between Paxton’s travel habits and those of his predecessor, Greg Abbott. While Abbott primarily traveled within Texas during his tenure as attorney general, Paxton has frequently traveled out of state. The records reviewed include trips to 36 states and 19 countries. In many instances, documentation detailing the specific purpose of these visits does not exist or was not provided by the Attorney General’s office.
What the Left Is Saying
Critics, including former officials from the National Association of Attorneys General, argue that the pattern of travel raises serious ethical questions. Chris Toth, former executive director of the association, stated that the sheer volume of trips without clear business ties makes the situation "ethically and morally problematic." Toth described the core issue as determining whether a legitimate security function has effectively become a "taxpayer-funded subsidy" for personal travel.
Progressive commentators and watchdog groups emphasize the lack of transparency. They note that Paxton’s office did not provide specific records for trips where no state business was listed, despite requests for additional information. The absence of daily calendars for many trips and the failure to answer detailed questions are cited as evidence that the security detail is being used for personal convenience rather than genuine safety threats.
What the Right Is Saying
The office of Attorney General Ken Paxton maintains that the security detail is necessary due to ongoing threats against the Attorney General. In a general statement, the office said, "Throughout his career, Ken Paxton has faced numerous security threats stemming from his courageous work as Attorney General fighting on behalf of the people of Texas." The statement asserted that these threats are a "direct result of him taking on the cartels terrorizing Texans and some of the nation’s most dangerous violent criminals."
Supporters and conservative commentators argue that the nature of Paxton’s legal work, which involves high-profile litigation against federal agencies and criminal organizations, justifies a robust security presence. They contend that the security detail is a standard protection for key state leaders and that the costs are a legitimate expense of office. The office has directed further questions about the specific security arrangements to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which declined to comment on the matter.
What the Numbers Show
According to the analysis of records obtained through the state’s Public Information Act, Paxton has taken nearly 1,000 trips with a state-funded security detail since 2015, costing $3.3 million. Only 138 of these trips and $553,000 in security costs could be connected to state business. This means that just 1 in 6 trips had a listed business purpose.
The data reveals a stark contrast with Paxton’s predecessor, Greg Abbott. Abbott’s security detail cost $203,000 during his last three years as attorney general. Adjusted for inflation, Abbott’s average monthly security cost was $7,400, compared to Paxton’s average of $24,300 per month. Specific travel patterns include 24 trips to Utah, where Paxton’s blind trust owns properties, and 53 trips to Florida, where he and the trust own multiple homes. During his suspension in 2023, Paxton took at least 17 trips to resort destinations like Park City, Utah, and Vail, Colorado, while barred from conducting official business.
The Bottom Line
The findings indicate a significant increase in both the frequency and cost of out-of-state travel for the Texas Attorney General compared to his predecessor, with limited documentation linking these trips to official state business. The lack of specific records for the majority of these trips has prevented a full accounting of how the security budget is utilized. With Paxton currently running for the U.S. Senate, these travel costs and the associated questions of transparency are likely to remain a focal point in his campaign and in ongoing oversight discussions regarding state officials' use of public resources.