Stephen A. Smith on former presidents’ wealth

On his Straight Shooter podcast, Stephen A. Smith pressed a question many viewers have asked about former presidents’ wealth: should public leaders’ private fortunes be measured against whether “Americans are prospering”? Smith used Forbes’ published estimates for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to frame the discussion and argued that private gains are defensible only when the broader public is doing well.

What Stephen A. Smith said

Smith opened the episode by reiterating a simple standard: “If the American people are prospering, get yours. It’s a capitalistic society.” He then contrasted the modest backgrounds of the two presidents he discussed with the sizable numbers reported after their time in office.

“I’ll confess something to ya’ll. Clinton was a lawyer in Arkansas. Grew up poor, relatively broke. How the hell him and the Clinton Foundation is worth hundreds of millions of dollars beat me.”

“Barack Obama was a community organizer who became the president of the United States and, last time I checked, that salary ain’t over $450,000… How the hell you depart from office worth over $200 million?”

— Stephen A. Smith, Straight Shooter podcast

Those remarks framed Smith’s skepticism: he does not object in principle to public figures earning money, but he wants those gains to sit comfortably alongside improving outcomes for ordinary Americans.

Forbes findings on post office earnings

Smith referenced figures that align with Forbes’ investigative summaries of post-presidential earnings. Forbes has estimated that Bill and Hillary Clinton together earned roughly $240 million after leaving the White House, with Bill Clinton’s book deals and paid speeches accounting for a large share of that total.

Forbes’ breakdown attributes substantial sums to book advances and royalties as well as high-fee speeches; the reporting cited roughly $189 million tied to books and about $106 million to paid speaking engagements in various compilations related to the Clintons. Forbes also placed Barack Obama’s net worth near $70 million in more recent estimates, a sharp rise from earlier points in his public career and largely explained by book deals and media or partnership arrangements.

These figures are reported estimates from Forbes and were referenced in Fox News Digital’s coverage of Smith’s comments. Forbes relies on public filings, reported contract values and other reporting to produce its tallies; those totals are estimates rather than court-determined amounts or certified audits.

Former presidents’ wealth and the Forbes figures

It is important to note how Forbes derives such numbers. Their methodology combines known contract values, reported advances, public disclosures, and other available data to produce a best estimate of net worth or post-office earnings. For high-profile former presidents, memoir advances, long-term royalty projections and seven-figure speaking fees become the dominant components of that estimate.

For readers, the distinction matters: Forbes’ work is an investigative accounting exercise meant to provide context and comparability, not a definitive legal finding. That nuance is part of why commentary around these totals often focuses less on exact dollars and more on the broader patterns of how former public servants monetize their profile.

How former presidents’ wealth is commonly earned

Reporting and expert commentary point to a handful of common revenue streams: book royalties and advances, paid speeches, presidential centers or foundations, consulting and media work. In many cases the most visible sources are blockbuster memoir advances and lucrative speaking engagements.

Books can provide immediate advances in the millions plus long-term royalties. Paid speeches to corporations, nonprofits or universities can command six- or seven-figure fees per event. Presidential centers and foundations can create jobs and partnerships and, depending on their structure, play roles in programming and fundraising that indirectly sustain an ex-president’s public platform.

None of these channels inherently implies wrongdoing; they are market mechanisms that convert name recognition and expertise into income. Reporting about the Clintons highlights particularly large advances and long-running speaking tours, while coverage of Obama emphasizes major book deals and later media partnerships.

Why this debate matters for Americans

Smith’s line about “Americans prospering” captures why the topic resonates: it is less a technical accounting debate than a question of perception and civic confidence. When former leaders amass wealth far beyond the salary they earned while in office, citizens may ask whether the incentives of public service are aligned with public benefit.

That question affects public trust, expectations about transparency, and how voters evaluate the post-office activities of former officials. For commentators and the public alike, the issue often becomes a proxy for broader concerns about inequality and whether an elite financial ecosystem rewards prominence more than public service.

Key takeaways

• Stephen A. Smith used Forbes’ reported estimates to question how some former presidents attained large post-office fortunes, stressing that Americans’ prosperity should come first.
• Forbes attributes much post-office income to book deals and paid speeches; its figures are investigative estimates, not legal judgments.
• Common revenue streams include books, speeches, presidential centers and media or consulting work — legitimate market activities that can yield high incomes.
• The broader debate centers on public trust, incentives in public life and whether private gains by former leaders align with the public interest.

Source attribution

This report is based on Fox News Digital’s coverage of Stephen A. Smith’s remarks and on reporting and estimates published by Forbes. Fox News Digital originally reported Smith’s podcast comments: Fox News Digital. Forbes’ investigation and reported tallies of post-office earnings are available here: Forbes.

Fox News Digital noted that outlets reached out to the former presidents for comment. The figures cited are reported estimates and are presented here as reported rather than independently verified by this outlet.

Frequently asked questions

What happened with former presidents’ wealth?

Stephen A. Smith questioned reported net worths for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama on his Straight Shooter podcast, referencing Forbes analyses of post-office earnings such as book advances and paid speeches.

Why does former presidents’ wealth matter?

The topic matters because it raises questions about public trust, incentives for public servants and whether the economic gains of former leaders reflect or diverge from the economic experience of the broader population.

What happens next?

Further reporting and public commentary typically follow. Additional disclosures, investigative updates or responses from the principals could provide more detail, and outlets that track wealth estimates may refine their figures over time.