HHS Inspector General Finds Tom Price Violated Federal Travel Rules, Wasted $341,000 on Private Jets

On July 13, 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General released a report finding that former HHS Secretary Tom Price violated federal travel regulations on 20 of 21 trips reviewed, wasting at least $341,000 in taxpayer funds through improper use of chartered aircraft and military planes. The OIG determined Price’s office failed to complete required cost comparisons to commercial airline service, did not properly authorize charter flights, violated contract requirements, and approved travel that started or ended in locations other than Price’s official duty station. The report—issued 10 months after Price’s September 2017 resignation amid private jet scandals—documented systematic violations of federal travel rules and recommended HHS seek to recoup $341,000 plus the $59,390 Price had already repaid, exposing weak oversight that enabled Cabinet-level corruption.

Systematic Violations of Federal Travel Regulations

The Inspector General’s investigation uncovered pervasive noncompliance with federal travel requirements:

20 of 21 Trips Violated Rules: The OIG found that 20 out of 21 reviewed trips did not comply with applicable federal regulations, HHS policies and procedures, or both. This 95 percent violation rate demonstrated systematic disregard for travel rules rather than isolated mistakes, indicating either intentional rule-breaking or complete failure of HHS administrative controls.

$1.2 Million Total Travel Costs: Price’s 21 trips cost taxpayers approximately $1.2 million, including both charter flights ($400,000+) and military aircraft ($500,000+). This total dwarfed the costs of commercial travel, which for the same trips would have cost approximately $80,000-100,000—meaning Price’s preference for luxury travel wasted roughly $1 million in taxpayer funds.

Missing Cost Comparisons: Federal regulations require agencies to complete cost comparisons showing that charter flights are more cost-effective than commercial alternatives before authorizing private aircraft. Price’s office failed to complete these required cost comparisons for virtually all charter flights, making it impossible to justify the expenses as prudent use of taxpayer funds.

Improper Authorization Procedures: The trips lacked proper authorization from officials with legal authority to approve charter aircraft use. This paperwork failure suggested Price’s office was either unfamiliar with required procedures or deliberately circumvented approval processes to avoid scrutiny of questionable travel decisions.

Non-Official Duty Station Travel: Some trips began or ended at locations other than Price’s official Washington, D.C. duty station, violating rules requiring government-funded travel to originate from and return to duty stations. This allowed Price to use taxpayer-funded aircraft for personal convenience, essentially treating government planes as private transportation.

Specific Examples of Wasteful Travel

The OIG report highlighted particularly egregious cases of excessive spending:

$121,500 Seattle Charter Flight: A single charter flight to Seattle in August 2017 cost taxpayers $121,500. Commercial airline tickets for the same route would have cost approximately $2,500 for Price and staff, meaning this one trip wasted nearly $107,000—40 percent of the total waste identified in the report. The massive cost differential exposed how Price’s luxury travel preferences resulted in hundred-fold cost increases over reasonable alternatives.

Personal Business Mixed with Government Travel: Multiple trips included segments where Price conducted personal business or visited locations connected to his personal interests. Federal rules prohibit using government aircraft for personal purposes, but Price’s office mixed official and personal activities, making it difficult to separate legitimate government travel from inappropriate personal use.

Military Aircraft for Domestic Travel: Price used military aircraft for domestic trips where commercial service was readily available. Military aircraft are generally reserved for situations where security concerns justify the expense or where officials need secure communications. Price’s use of military planes for routine domestic travel suggested he exploited his Cabinet position for luxury amenities rather than legitimate security needs.

Spouse Travel: Price’s wife accompanied him on some trips, with taxpayers covering her travel costs despite her having no official government role. While regulations sometimes permit spousal travel for representational purposes, the OIG questioned whether the circumstances justified these expenses.

Recommended Recoupment: $341,000

The Inspector General recommended HHS attempt to recover specific amounts:

$333,014 for Charter Aircraft Violations: The bulk of recoverable waste stemmed from unauthorized or improperly justified charter aircraft use. This amount represented the difference between charter costs and what commercial travel would have cost for the same trips.

$4,926 for Non-Duty Station Travel: Price’s trips that began or ended outside his official Washington, D.C. duty station violated regulations requiring government-funded travel to originate from duty stations. The $4,926 represented costs for these improperly authorized segments.

$2,960 for Other Excess Travel Costs: Additional violations included per diem overcharges, improper expense categories, and other regulatory noncompliance that added to taxpayer costs.

Price’s Inadequate Repayment: After the scandal broke in September 2017, Price repaid $51,887 for his own travel and $7,503 for his wife’s travel—totaling $59,390. The OIG’s findings showed this repayment covered only a fraction of the total waste, as Price calculated reimbursement based only on what his seat on charter flights would have cost, not the difference between charter and commercial alternatives or the full waste from regulatory violations.

Weak Internal Controls Enabled Violations

The report exposed systemic failures in HHS administrative oversight:

Insufficient Review Processes: HHS lacked effective procedures to review and approve travel requests before officials departed, allowing Price to book expensive charter flights without triggering cost-benefit analyses or regulatory compliance checks.

No Real-Time Monitoring: The department had no system to monitor travel costs in real-time and flag excessive spending for review. This meant Price could accumulate hundreds of thousands in questionable expenses before anyone noticed or raised concerns.

Deference to Political Appointees: Career staff appeared reluctant to question a Cabinet Secretary’s travel decisions, creating a culture where political appointees operated without meaningful oversight. This deference allowed Price to treat government resources as personal luxuries without career employees pushing back on obvious waste.

Post-Departure Repayment Insufficient: Even after Price resigned and repaid $59,390, HHS took no action to recover the additional $341,000 identified by the Inspector General. This failure to pursue full reimbursement signaled that even when waste and violations are documented, consequences remain minimal for high-ranking officials.

Pattern Across Trump Cabinet

Price’s travel violations were part of a broader pattern of Trump Cabinet corruption:

Scott Pruitt (EPA): EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt spent $163,000 on first-class travel and $43,000 on a secure phone booth, faced 13 federal investigations, and resigned in July 2018—weeks before the Price OIG report.

Ryan Zinke (Interior): Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke chartered a $12,000 flight from Las Vegas to Montana, spent $139,000 on office doors, and faced multiple ethics investigations before resigning in December 2018.

Ben Carson (HUD): HUD Secretary Ben Carson spent $31,000 on a dining set for his office, violating spending limits and demonstrating similar disregard for taxpayer funds.

Steve Mnuchin (Treasury): Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin requested military aircraft to fly to Europe for his honeymoon, citing need for secure communications. The request was denied but revealed Cabinet members’ sense of entitlement to taxpayer-funded luxury.

Systematic Pattern: The consistency of Cabinet travel and spending scandals suggested Trump’s administration established a culture where officials felt entitled to use government resources for personal luxury without consequences. The pattern indicated inadequate vetting, weak ethics enforcement, and tolerance for corruption at the highest levels.

Media Exposure vs. Internal Oversight

The scandal highlighted failures in government self-policing:

Politico Investigation: The private jet scandal only came to light because Politico investigated Price’s travel in September 2017, publishing reports that revealed the $1+ million in expenses. Without this external media investigation, Price’s violations would likely have continued indefinitely.

No Internal Red Flags: Despite 20 of 21 trips violating federal rules, HHS internal systems never flagged the travel as problematic or triggered review. This complete failure of internal controls meant the department was incapable of detecting or preventing executive-level corruption without outside intervention.

OIG Report Delay: The Inspector General’s report came 10 months after Price’s resignation and only after media exposure had already forced his departure. This reactive rather than proactive approach meant the OIG served primarily to document already-known violations rather than preventing them in real-time.

Limited Consequences: Even with a detailed OIG report documenting $341,000 in waste and systematic rule violations, Price faced no criminal prosecution, no civil penalties beyond requested reimbursement, and no professional sanctions. He simply returned to the private sector, his government service ended but his freedom and reputation largely intact.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Executive Privilege

The scandal raised questions about appropriate executive travel:

Security vs. Convenience: Legitimate security concerns sometimes justify expensive travel for Cabinet officials. However, Price’s trips included domestic travel to locations with no elevated security threats, suggesting he confused personal convenience with security necessity.

Commercial Travel Feasibility: For the vast majority of Price’s trips, commercial first-class or business-class service would have provided comparable comfort, speed, and privacy while costing 90-95 percent less. His insistence on charter aircraft indicated desire for luxury rather than operational necessity.

Precedent from Previous Administrations: Previous HHS Secretaries, including those in the Obama and George W. Bush administrations, routinely flew commercial for domestic travel without security incidents. Price’s charter travel represented a departure from normal practice rather than continuation of longstanding necessity.

Taxpayer Value: Citizens might accept expensive executive travel if it demonstrably increased government effectiveness. Price’s trips had no such justification—they simply transported him in luxury rather than coach, providing zero additional benefit to the public.

Regulatory Capture: Self-Oversight Failure

The scandal exemplified how regulatory capture extends to oversight mechanisms:

Inspector General Limitations: While the OIG documented violations and recommended recoupment, it lacked authority to compel repayment or impose penalties. This limited power meant Inspector General reports serve primarily as historical records of wrongdoing rather than deterrents preventing future violations.

No Criminal Referral: Despite systematic violations of federal travel regulations, the OIG made no criminal referral to the Department of Justice. This omission suggested that misuse of hundreds of thousands in taxpayer funds falls below the threshold for criminal prosecution when committed by Cabinet officials—a double standard that would not apply to lower-level federal employees.

Political Appointee Immunity: Career federal employees who violated travel regulations to even a fraction of Price’s extent would face termination, prosecution, and pension loss. Political appointees like Price face at most resignation and voluntary repayment, demonstrating that senior officials operate under different rules than the workforce they manage.

Deterrence Failure: The minimal consequences Price faced—resignation, partial repayment, critical report—provided little deterrent against future Cabinet officials engaging in similar misconduct. Without meaningful penalties, ethics rules become suggestions that officials can ignore if they’re willing to accept media criticism.

Institutional Significance

The Price OIG report exposed fundamental weaknesses in federal ethics enforcement:

Reactive vs. Proactive Oversight: Government oversight systems proved incapable of detecting corruption in real-time, relying instead on media investigations to expose wrongdoing after the fact. This reactive approach allows officials to engage in corrupt practices until reporters notice, by which point damage is done.

Documentation Without Accountability: Inspector General reports meticulously document violations but rarely lead to meaningful consequences. This creates a system where corruption is recorded for history without being prevented or punished, satisfying transparency requirements while failing to ensure accountability.

Capture of Oversight Functions: The HHS staff responsible for reviewing Price’s travel requests were subordinate to Price himself, creating inherent conflicts where oversight bodies serve the officials they’re supposed to police. True oversight requires independence that federal agencies’ internal structures don’t provide.

Erosion of Norms: Each Cabinet scandal without serious consequences shifts norms about acceptable behavior, establishing new baselines for corruption tolerance. Price’s case added to a Trump-era erosion of ethics expectations, where what would have been disqualifying scandals in previous administrations became routine embarrassments officials survived.

The July 13, 2018 Inspector General report confirmed what media investigations had revealed nine months earlier—Tom Price systematically violated federal travel regulations and wasted hundreds of thousands in taxpayer funds on luxury travel—while also exposing that even detailed documentation of wrongdoing leads to minimal accountability for high-ranking officials, demonstrating the weakness of federal ethics enforcement.