Leaked documents expose President William Ruto massive monthly PR bill to US firm

A recent report has drawn attention to the high costs linked to public relations work for Kenya’s President William Ruto.

According to details shared online, a United States-based company was hired to handle PR services at a rate that turned out to be far higher than first claimed.

One post circulating online suggested the monthly fee stood at around 22.575 shillings.

A journalist who has covered the story corrected the figure, pointing out that the actual amount was 175,000 US dollars every month. That adds up to nearly two million dollars over the course of a year.

The journalist also noted that the arrangement had already been reported earlier. The information appeared in a piece published by Africa Intelligence in August 2025, which discussed preparations for a trip to Washington aimed at improving relations with the Trump administration.

The scale of the spending has raised questions among some Kenyans. Public relations work is a normal part of any government or political office, yet the size of this particular contract stands out.

Paying close to two million dollars a year for outside help means a large sum of money is leaving the country for services that many feel could be handled more locally or at a lower cost.

Critics have argued that such expenses put extra pressure on taxpayers at a time when many ordinary people are struggling with the cost of living.

Others see it as part of efforts by the government to manage its image both at home and abroad, especially when dealing with important international partners.

The discussion online has mixed reactions. Some people expressed surprise at the figures and called for more careful use of public funds. A few others defended the decision, saying professional communication support is necessary for a head of state.

Still, the dominant feeling in many comments is that the price tag appears unusually high.

No official statement from the government explaining the full details of the contract has been widely shared in the recent online conversation.

The journalist who highlighted the corrected amount stressed that the story was already on record and not new.

What remains clear is that the reported cost has sparked fresh debate about how public money is spent on image management. Whether the services delivered value that matches the price is a question many are now asking.

The conversation continues about the balance between effective communication and responsible use of resources.