The issue is he gets the same benefits everyone does, they just happen to affect him differently. He's non-violent, and not a flight risk (Constant USSS presence) so he's going to have the option to await trial outside of jail with the threat of further penalty/charges if he acts in bad faith. I'm unsure if there's anything a judge can do that's not lacking precedent¹ to keep him confined until he is tried. It's the same benefit you or I would receive, assuming we had the resources (bail reform is a whole different topic). I don't like that its making this more difficult, but I'll stand by the right itself.

¹ Precedent is pretty important here. This is a major event, regardless of political affiliation/apathy. A former U.S. president is being brought up on charges that could colloquially be defined as treason/sedition. Everything needs to be by the book as possible not only so this can stick, but also so future generations have something to call on if a similar situation arises. The key is to know where the fully uncharted waters are, and to act wisely therein. Choose your battles, as it were.

It's simply not enforceable outside of a recorded conversation, or obvious tampering if their story is contradicted by other first-hand sources. Whether or not that results in witness tampering or perjury, who knows? It partially feels like this trial is only happening after being essentially forced by the Jan. 6th committee making clear how egregious Trump et al. actions were.