Former President Joe Biden is cashing in on a retirement package that’s bigger than his paycheck as commander in chief.

At an eye-popping $417,000 annually, Biden’s pension outstrips his $400,000 presidential salary, marking it the largest taxpayer-funded retirement payout for any ex-president in U.S. history, thanks to a career spanning senator, vice president, and president.

For hardworking taxpayers, this is a gut punch, especially when every dollar counts in a struggling economy with rising costs. This financial burden—over $1.5 million budgeted for Biden in fiscal year 2026 alone, including $727,000 for office space—raises serious questions about fairness. Conservatives are right to demand scrutiny over why public funds are footing such a lavish bill while many Americans scrape by.

Unpacking Biden’s Unprecedented Retirement Benefits

Biden, now 83 and in his first year as a former president, qualifies for this hefty sum through a unique blend of retirement funds. His long tenure—starting as a senator in 1972, then vice president, and finally president—lets him tap into multiple taxpayer-supported pensions. It’s a loophole that’s hard to ignore.

The numbers come from an analysis by Demian Brady, vice president of the National Taxpayer Union Foundation, who didn’t hold back on the sticker shock. “It’s pretty unusual, historically unusual, to have such a large pension amount,” Brady said. And yet, here we are, with a payout double that of former President Barack Obama’s retirement pay.

Breaking it down, Biden’s pension includes $250,600 yearly under the Former Presidents Act of 1958, pegged to a cabinet secretary’s salary. Add to that a Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) benefit, potentially reaching $166,374 based on 44 years of service, capped at 80% of his highest salary of $230,700 as vice president. It’s a sweet deal, especially since post-1972 Senate retirement plans got stingier for newer members.

Taxpayer-Funded Perks Raise Eyebrows

Beyond the cash, the Former Presidents Act piles on extras like staff, equipment, and office space—uncapped and lifelong. That $727,000 for Biden’s office space alone dwarfs what other ex-presidents receive. It’s a blank check that sticks taxpayers with the tab, no matter the rent or square footage.

Brady put it bluntly: “There’s no cap on the rent for that.” He added, “It could be in a high-density area with high rent, and there is no limit on the amount of square footage that’s being rented and funded by taxpayers.” This kind of unchecked spending is exactly why fiscal conservatives are sounding the alarm.

Historically, the Former Presidents Act stemmed from concerns over Harry Truman’s financial woes, though some argue he was far from broke. Regardless, the intent was support, not extravagance. Today’s benefits, however, feel more like a platinum parachute than a safety net.

Calls for Reform Gain Traction

Biden’s payout isn’t just big—it’s $17,000 more than his presidential salary, a fact that rankles those who see government excess at every turn. While Biden once called himself among the “poorest members” of Congress, his retirement haul tells a different story. It’s a stark reminder of how the system often rewards insiders while regular folks foot the bill.

Reform isn’t just a pipe dream; it’s been on the table. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, pushed the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act to cap pensions at $200,000 and trim perks like office space and travel. A similar bill passed Congress in 2016, only to be vetoed by Obama—proof that change faces stiff resistance.

Meanwhile, congressional pensions add fuel to the fire, costing taxpayers $38 million yearly for members with just five years of service. Look at Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who qualifies for $8,717 annually after meeting the threshold, potentially pocketing over $265,000 over her lifetime. Even Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., stands to gain $107,860 yearly upon leaving in 2027.

Time for Accountability in Pensions

This isn’t about envy—it’s about equity. When Biden’s retirement outpaces the current president’s pay, it’s a signal that the system’s skewed. Conservatives aren’t wrong to question if this is the best use of public funds in tight times.

The debate isn’t personal; it’s practical. With millions budgeted for ex-presidents’ perks and no limits on lifelong benefits, the call for oversight resonates with anyone tired of bloated budgets. Maybe it’s time Congress takes a hard look at tightening the purse strings.

After all, if we’re funding golden retirements for career politicians, what’s left for the rest of us? That’s the question taxpayers deserve answered, and it won’t go away without a fight for reform. Let’s keep the pressure on for a system that prioritizes fairness over favor.