Naema Celestine 
Mwau Dorothy
Back home in Kenya, President William Ruto’s recent visit to the US has generated a great deal of
controversy and discussion.
Citizens and political pundits alike are questioning the rationale for such
high costs at a time when the nation is facing economic issues as details of the trip’s expenses come to
light.
The journey was a component of a diplomatic mission meant to improve Kenya’s relations with the
United States and took place in early May 2024. President Ruto had meetings with several influential
people, including representatives of the government, CEOs, and Kenyan expatriates. Topics on
commerce, investment, security, and stability in the area were on the agenda.
The trip is estimated to have cost Kenyan taxpayers about KSh 200 million. This amount covers lodging,
travel expenses, security information, and additional logistical charges. Many have criticized the
exorbitant cost, claiming that it is excessive, and the hefty price tag has garnered criticism from many
directions.
A large amount of the costs were incurred on lodging and transportation. It has been alleged that
President Ruto and his group flew aboard a private jet and stayed in upscale hotels. Selecting opulent
lodging and first-rate travel plans has proven to be very difficult.
It is crucial to guarantee the president’s safety when traveling abroad, and this trip was no different. A
significant portion of the total cost was incurred by the security detail’s people, equipment, and
logistical costs. On the other hand, detractors contend that some of these expenses could have been
avoided.
President Ruto attended several formal gatherings and activities while in the country. During one of
these bilateral meetings, US President Joe Biden and I talked about our shared interests and future joint
ventures. A business forum was organized as part of the tour to draw American investors to Kenya.
The possible long-term advantages have been used by the Kenyan government to justify the trip’s costs.
Officials contend that the trip’s benefits—both diplomatic and financial—will exceed its immediate
expenses. As important results, they point to possible investments, economic agreements, and
improved diplomatic ties.
The government has provided justifications for the travel, but there has been significant public outrage.
Many Kenyans are doubting the need for such extravagant expenditure, particularly in light of the
country’s current financial difficulties. Public forums and social media have been ablaze with complaints
and demands for increased responsibility.
Leaders of the opposition have been outspoken in their criticism of the trip’s costs. They contend that
the money would have been better used to solve urgent domestic problems including infrastructure
development, healthcare, and education. They have demanded more openness in government spending
and an audit.
In Kenya, there have been other instances where presidential travel has drawn criticism. Similar criticism
for their costly foreign trips has been leveled at previous administrations as well. The fact that these
disputes keep coming up indicates that there should be more precise rules and regulations regarding the
use of public monies for official travel.
A discussion on striking a balance between appropriate public spending and vital diplomatic interactions
has been sparked by President Ruto’s costly trip to the US. Although the trip’s possible advantages are
recognized, the dispute emphasizes the necessity of responsibility, openness, and giving national
interests top priority when allocating government funds.
