Outrage over claim Canadian taxpayers are funding BODYGUARDS for Justin Trudeau’s many lavish jaunts with girlfriend Katy Perry
Canadians have reportedly expressed anger over claims that taxpayers are footing the bill for security details accompanying former prime minister Justin Trudeau on trips with his girlfriend, singer Katy Perry. The allegation has fuelled criticism of Mr Trudeau, who left office as Canada's leader, over the use of public funds to protect him during what critics characterise as personal, leisure-oriented travel with his celebrity partner.
The article's supplied text does not include further specific details, figures or an official response from Mr Trudeau, Katy Perry or the Canadian government regarding the security arrangements or their cost to the public purse.
- Claims taxpayers fund Trudeau's bodyguards on trips with Katy Perry
- Criticism centres on public money spent on personal travel
- No further details or official response were available in the source text
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those raising concerns argue that taxpayers deserve transparency and restraint when public money follows a former leader on what appear to be personal holidays and celebrity social occasions. They contend that even if security protocols require protection to continue, the optics of lavish, high-profile leisure trips funded partly by the public purse invite legitimate scrutiny, and that citizens have a right to ask whether costs are proportionate and whether some element of personal travel should be borne privately. This view is rooted in principles of fiscal accountability and the expectation that former officials remain mindful of public perception even after leaving office.
The case against
Those defending the arrangement argue that former heads of government retain credible, lasting security threats precisely because of the office they once held, and that protection details are a matter of national security assessment rather than personal choice, following the individual regardless of whether the trip is official or private. They point out that security agencies, not the former leader, determine risk levels and coverage, and that stripping protection during personal travel would be both operationally reckless and inconsistent with how other democracies protect former leaders. This view is grounded in the principle that personal safety of former officials is a state responsibility that should not be politicised based on who they are seen with or where they travel.