"This Is How Much The Trumps' LAVISH Lifestyle Could Cost You" reads a heading on Snapchat's "Featured" section. In-between stories about a Taylor Swift lookalike and the struggles of baby penguins, Snapchat took the time to quickly remind its 60 million users of Trump's most recent display of awfulness.

However, some legitimate media outlets - not including Snapchat - have also been expressing concern over taxpayer funding of the Trumps' three recent trips to their Mar-a-Lago escape in Florida.

These media corporations report with excitement that, ironically, Trump may surpass the Obama family in his taxpayer-funded security expenditures. If proven, this could deflate Trump's earlier jabs at President Obama's loose vacation spending.

But it seems reasonable that Trump may need more security given the combination of the following three factors: Barron and Melania continue to live in New York apart from the president, President Trump has easily identifiable real estate, and Donald Trump has a noteworthy following of aggressive protestors.

This particular Snapchat story - borrowed from The Washington Post - blamed the protection of Trump Tower and Melania and Barron Trump for costing the taxpayers $500,000 dollars per day.

How valid are these accusations?

Fundamentally, it is outrageous to suggest that security is a luxury. Snapchat's cover story was lined with animated jewels and displayed a black and white picture of the Trump family which resembled a mug shot. It seemed that the intention of the story was to demonize the Trumps as careless about the costs they unfairly incur on the American public.

Even so, it seems more fair to spend millions of dollars on safety costs than vacationing in Hawaii, if one is to compare Trump and Obama. Vacationing is a luxury but protecting your family is a responsibility.

The articles which complain about Trump's "lavish" spending largely fail to account for Trump's relative need nor do they specify that such spending is needless. If the threat increases, so must the security spending.

What is most important is that the report cited by various sources simply does not exist. There has been no formal investigation into the expenses of the Trump administration save some New York police officers' estimates that security costs $500,000 per day.

To support their headlines about lavish spending, journalists cobbled together statistics from a Government Accountability Office report which detailed the costs of former President Obama's trip to Chicago in 2013. It outlines Obama's travel patterns, vehicles, type of security, etc. which were used to estimate the cost of Trump travel.

Politico reports that Judicial Watch, an organization which investigated the travel of President Obama, will develop a report which details the expenses of the Trump family's travel.

Judicial Watch will create the study that the media desperately wants to exist; for now, it must settle for reporting on Obama's spending habits and extrapolating the data to temporarily conclude that Donald Trump is overspending.

As of now, conjecture is the best evidence.

This same Politico article lists a relative advantage of Donald Trump's expenses: his ownership of numerous properties across the world. Author Scott Farris is quoted who explains that presidents pay for their families' own lodging and food, but the taxpayers often fund the travel. When Obama traveled to Hawaii, there was no Obama International Hotel.

According to Judicial Watch (the source which will investigate President Trump's executive spending habits), the Obama vacations totaled $85,029,819 in taxpayer dollars.

If this source is reliable enough to indict Trump, it should be reliable enough to indict Obama.

If you're confused about how Trump has outspent Obama, you're not alone.