The Obama Presidential Center, a project meant to honor former President Barack Obama, is under fire for failing to meet a key financial promise. When the Obama Foundation was given 19.3 acres of public land in Chicago’s Jackson Park for just $10, it agreed to create a $470 million endowment. That fund was supposed to protect taxpayers from any future costs tied to the center. But according to recent tax filings, only $1 million has been deposited into the fund so far.
This comes at a time when construction costs have ballooned. The original estimate for the center was $330 million. Now it’s up to $850 million. That’s more than double what was expected. Yet the endowment fund, created to ensure the center could operate without demanding more public money, is almost empty. This leaves the city—and its taxpayers—on the hook if the foundation runs out of cash.
Critics are sounding the alarm. GOP Chair Kathy Salvi called the project an “abomination,” accusing Democrat leaders in Illinois of playing fast and loose with public trust. “They treat taxpayer money like their own piggy bank,” she said. And it’s not hard to see why she’s concerned. If the foundation can’t raise enough money to both finish the project and operate it long-term, the financial burden could fall squarely on the public.
Law professor Richard Epstein from the University of Chicago is one of the fiercest critics. He has opposed the center from the beginning, arguing that giving away public parkland for a private foundation was a bad deal. Epstein says the lack of proper funding proves that concern. He estimates the Obama Center could cost $30 million a year to operate. Without a well-funded endowment, the foundation may need to keep asking donors—or worse, the government—for help year after year.
Epstein also raised legal concerns. He challenged the land transfer in court, claiming it broke the public trust doctrine, which says public land should be used clearly for the public’s benefit. A judge dismissed the case, but Epstein says the failure to fund the endowment shows there was never a solid public benefit to begin with. In his view, the center is now a financial risk, not a public good.
The Obama Foundation says the center is “fully funded” and still on track to open in 2026. A spokesperson promised more money would be added to the endowment “in the coming years.” But critics note that there is no specific amount written into the agreement with the city. Technically, the foundation met its legal duty by simply setting up an endowment—even if that fund is nearly empty.
Nonprofit watchdog CharityWatch confirmed that there is no clear requirement on how much money must be in the endowment. That leaves taxpayers with little protection if the foundation runs into money trouble. And given the explosive rise in construction costs, that risk is real.
This raises broader national concerns. If one of the most high-profile presidential memorial projects in the country can cut corners on financial promises, what does that say about public accountability in big urban projects? More importantly, how many taxpayer dollars will eventually be used to make up the shortfall?
America has seen this playbook before—big promises, little oversight, and taxpayers left holding the bag. As we look to rebuild national trust, especially after years of government waste and elite privilege, this situation is a reminder that even presidential legacies must be held to account. The Obama Foundation needs to come clean about its finances and meet the commitments it made to the public.
If not, Chicagoans—and possibly federal taxpayers—may be forced to pay for a project that was supposed to cost them nothing. That’s not just bad policy. It’s a warning sign about how far the political class is willing to go when no one is watching.