I googled it because I thought you were making something up.
Here is a quote from the Clinton News Network's article:
"According to the Center for Public Integrity, presidential campaign committees are generally not obligated by federal law to pay public-safety bills submitted by municipalities that host presidential campaign rallies, and President Obama often did not pay such bills during his 2012 campaign."
Beto O'Rourke held a rally the same day in El Paso as Trump, but he chose to pay for the cost, the president chose not to. According to the Center for Public Integrity, city officials can't force political campaigns to pay their debts unless they sign formal agreements with the campaigns. Still, some police groups say that candidates who often amass multi-million dollar war chests, who opt to hold campaign events around the country should compensate the cities they visit, even if they're not legally required to do so. In the second quarter of 2019, Trump reported a whopping campaign haul of 26.5 Million, if he was required by law to pay El Paso the money he owes them, he likely would have, the fact that he's not legally required doesn't mean he shouldn't do the right thing and pay the city, what's 500,00 to him when in just the second quarter of this year he's taken in over 26 Million.
"Our resources are really strained right now," said Alexandra Annello, a member of the El Paso City Council. "Our police and fire are exhausted, our health department had for three days straight been working with the reunification of families. As you see from the bill, these are the services required for a presidential visit. In addition to financial costs, our community and resources are already strained and do not need this extra burden."
So no Benny, there's no law that says Trump has to repay the city the enormous costs he owes them, but don't you think he should pay his debt anyway? Don't you agree that it's the right thing to do? When asked by reporters why he hasn't paid the money he owes, is his response going to be, "because legally I don't have to." Is that really the way a president should act? Do you really think it's perfectly fine for him not to pay what for him is a small sum of money to a city that could really use the money? Legally he doesn't have to pay El Paso, but morally he does, now since we both know he has no morals, I suspect the debt will never be paid