April 30, 2026

"The ballroom is, to the confusion of many, a top priority for Trump. Indeed, it has been one since long before he launched himself into politics."

"Way back in 2010, Trump called David Axelrod, at the time a senior adviser to President Obama, and offered to build a ballroom for the White House. The offer was not accepted. Barely two weeks into his second term, Trump began talking up his ballroom dream once again. Within months, he had demolished the East Wing of the White House and construction was set to begin...."


"The area underneath the erstwhile East Wing has long been known to house an emergency bunker.... Over the course of litigation, the government insisted more and more explicitly that the harm to national security 'cannot simply be cleaved off' by permitting only below-ground work to continue while barring above-ground progress.... The attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner has now become part of this case.... 'D.C. does not have a secure space for large high-profile events.... Without such a location,' the Justice Department argues, 'the President is thus put to the choice of risking his safety by attending events in unsecure venues—be it the tents on the White House lawn, or places like the Washington Hilton (which is now home to two attempted presidential assassinations)—or forgoing those events entirely—to the detriment of his constitutional responsibility to 'speak[] to and on behalf of the American people.'..."

77 comments:

imTay said...

Demented as the man is, I think he has a point, re security. After all, assassination seems to be SOP in international negotiations these days.

Enigma said...

The White House's underground security system was at least 50 years old (i.e., see the D.C. Red Line Metro connections circa the early 1970s). The bunker per se was probably closer to WW2 era.

Given modern Bunker Buster missile technology, I doubt the old East Wing underground would protect anyone at all.

The security industry surely considers the above ground ballroom as as disposable shield akin to breakaway tank armor. The underground will be tough, but the top serves as a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th layer of defense.

Trump wants art and style in buildings -- anyone who's been to NYC's Trump Tower with the atrium where he came down the escalator in 2015 gets his style.

Achilles said...

imTay said...

Demented as the man is, I think he has a point, re security. After all, assassination seems to be SOP in international negotiations these days.

LOL!

Do you realize how unintentionally ironic your post is?

tim maguire said...

If Trump is so obsessed with the ballroom, then why did he say nothing about it in his first term? Maybe a couple assassination attempts has revealed to him the wisdom of staying home whenever possible.

But sure, letting the executive make decisions about the executive ballroom is just about the courts ceding power to the executive.

narciso said...

His clogs are stuck,

narciso said...

Its a long time project

Bob Boyd said...

I'm starting a new conspiracy theory.
Mrs. Hegseth knew about the assassination attempt in advance.
Proof?
She had a fab designer dress ready to go, but she switched to the Temu dress last minute because who wants to risk getting bullet holes in a $50,000 dress?

narciso said...

Good grief these people are insane

Achilles said...

It’s actually really cool to have a builder as president instead of a talentless hack lawyer.

Enigma said...

@tim maguire --

Trump 45 had only the vaguest notion of how D.C. functioned, no understanding of nuclear war, and no appreciation the number nor the tenacity of his enemies. His main accomplishment was pulling off the face masks of everyone around, but "They Live" (1988) was just wrapping up Act 1.

He had to get through Act 2 during Biden's term -- and the assassination attempts -- to finally 'get it.'

Trump 45 allowed himself to be hamstrung and tricked from all sides, to include numerous nominal friends. He had no defensive plan and therefore no offense either. Trump 47 is a different person.

Leland said...

the executive make decisions about the executive ballroom is just about the courts ceding power to the executive.

Indeed.

boatbuilder said...

Seems more like a test of whether the courts, or the National Trust for Historic Preservation, have any real authority here.

Incidentally Yesterday someone posted a short video of the ceremony welcoming King Charles (soldiers in Revolutionary War garb). The massive grey Legislative Office Building noticeably loomed in the background over the White House portico. The basic premise that there is some pure aesthetic principle being promoted by the opponents of the ballroom is nonsense.

The Tangerine Tornado said...

It's Trumps idea, so it's automatically wrong and harmful. Democrats can't think or plan 5 minutes into the future so the prospect that the ballroom and underground secure spaces would benefit a future Democrat President is not considered.

Enigma said...

@boatbuilder --

Indeed. The Eisenhower building lies just to the west of the West Wing. It sticks out like an overly ornate sore thumb among the Greco-Roman buildings all around. It doesn't look 'bad', but claiming the East Wing was somehow special is nonsense. Designwise, it's more important that the new East Wing match the much larger Treasury Building to its east than the White House.

The White House has long used trees and hills and camera angles to preserve the traditional look and feel. Yet, it sits among modern stuff all around. Around 10 to 20 years ago, a lighted hotel-top sign several blocks behind the White House made it seem that there were ads on the White House itself. Nope, just life in a dense urban area. (They did eventually take down the lighted signage/ads.)

Peachy said...

It's way past time to modernize these old useless buildings.

He is willing to pay for it.

Peachy said...

Poor Tim in Vermont. He has the Tuck-CandyAss-MGYN Kelly disease.

Peachy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peachy said...

Hilton needs to demolish that old hotel where the press conference/left-wing assassination just took place.

Peachy said...

Speaking of MGYN Kelly - She just FLIPPED again. LOL.

easy for the eyes, too.

Enigma said...

@Peachy --

The DC Hilton is apparently a registered landmark. It was the site of many political events, so a teardown seems unlikely.

https://historicsites.dcpreservation.org/items/show/652

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ along with $1.8bn of Kleptocracy said...

February 5, 2025. Trump announces he is going to build a new ballroom at the WH and pay for it with his own money: “It’s going to cost nothing. I will spend the whole thing myself.”

Peachy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aggie said...

"...The case may test just how far national security deference by the courts to the executive can stretch" (Lawfare)...."

Lawfare? The tactic that dare not speak its name? What deference has been extended so far? It's a project with precedents that stretch back well over a century, with the exception that it is being privately funded, not at government's expense. It's a project that was held up by a single self-appointed committee that claims relevance and has no delegated or statutory power.

The case is really testing how far obstructive partisan bullsh*t can be pushed to gum up the ability of a duly elected administration to govern as directed by the voters.

Enigma said...

IEE:

The ballroom is not the layered security complex. The ballroom will cost chump change relative to what the military demands as security measures. The armor and electronics of the underground alone will cost more than the ballroom.

Big Mike said...

But sure, letting the executive make decisions about the executive ballroom is just about the courts ceding power to the executive.

The Judiciary cannot cede power that Article II gave to the President.

D.D. Driver said...

Can someone answer: what does the White House Correspondents’ Dinner have to do with the ballroom? It's not a fucking government event! It's wankfest put on by the DC media! Why should my tax money go to pay for a left wing circle jerk!?! Why? The media can pay for its own parties.

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ along with $1.8bn of Kleptocracy said...

Donald Trump’s Iran war has cost $25bn, Pentagon says ~ FT

Sounds an epic-low ball. Wear and tear on equipment is also high and costing a fortune. F-35s are $50k per hour to fly.

Given the amount of half truths and obfuscation coming out of the Trump administration right now. $25 billion is a gross underestimate. Actual cost is likely not less than $2.5 billion/day so at least $150 billion of direct and indirect costs for 60 days. Can anyone take anything they say seriously these days?

Think of all the ballrooms that could have been built.

narciso said...

She was hawt once but now just crazy

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ along with $1.8bn of Kleptocracy said...

Core inflation rate hit 3.2% in March as first-quarter growth disappointed at 2% ~ CNBC

In a way Donald started an Economic World War in late February

Big Mike said...

I’m trying to imagine a woman using a Port-a-Potty in an expensive ball gown. Bad enough in a tux.

From this I conclude that the opponents of are hard core misogynists.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

If security was the paramount concern, Trump would build his ballroom somewhere away from the White House. He would also cancel public tours of the White House. Since it’s supposedly going to be funded by private money, why not build it on privately purchased real estate?

In any case, the White House Correspondents' Association would only be able to hold their dinner in the White House ballroom if the President gave permission. Would all such events in DC that the President plans to attend have to be held in the White House ballroom? And wouldn’t the organizers have to have contingency plans to hold them somewhere else if the President cancels last minute?

Imagine the Trump DC Ballroom Foundation, a private entity with a ballroom where organizations could hold events in DC without having to get permission from the current occupant of the White House. Maybe they would only give permission to MAGA Republicans, in which case the Democrats can build their own ballroom if they want one.

MadTownGuy said...

"The ballroom is, to the confusion of many, a top priority for Trump. Indeed, it has been one since long before he launched himself into politics."

Pure projection. The ballroom is high on the list of the media outlets' - and the legal-industrial complex's - obsessions.

RCOCEAN II said...

Trump should just say the judicial branch has zero jurisidiction over the white house grounds. And go on regardless. Let Roberts enforce his ruling.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

They were fools not to take his offer.

Enigma said...

@Left Bank of the Charles: If security was the paramount concern, Trump would build his ballroom somewhere away from the White House.

Zooooooom! Right over your head. You have zero concept of State Events nor of DC security in a congested urban environment. The ENTIRE DC downtown region, to include the grassy mall with monuments, the White House, and the Capitol Building are in a massive security zone. There is a drone no-fly zone out to 15 miles too.

The area has constant, 24/7 security vehicle presence, road blockages, and cameras/snipers. When any event happens, they run a security convoy of SUVs carrying VIPs down the streets. When helcopters are involved, they shut down airspace. When driving is involved, they shut down the freeways and surface roads. When crowds are involved, they put up human cages/fences for blocks and blocks.

Having a secure ballroom adjacent to the White House avoids a large percentage of the security costs and eliminates potential attacks in public spaces.

ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! Right over your head!

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ along with $1.8bn of Kleptocracy said...

U.S. Debt Tops 100% of GDP ~ WSJ
'Federal debt exceeding the size of the economy is a potent symbol of the gathering fiscal stresses on the U.S.'

Two biggest spikes are the bailouts from The Great Recession and the Trump Tax Cuts. Brilliant work GOP! Party of fiscal responsibility!

This is why we need a ballroom.

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ along with $1.8bn of Kleptocracy said...

"eliminates potential attacks in public spaces."

So... Trump will never do public rally/appearances again?

steve uhr said...

I think secret service could have with additional analysis and resources made the dinner fully secure. I haven’t seen anything to the contrary. Difficult yes. Impossible no way.

Enigma said...

IEE:

State events cost big money. They spend a fortune on 4th of July, Inaugurations, etc. Smaller state visits, etc. happen on the White House South Lawn (outside), or perhaps in the future, in the East Wing Ballroom.

Not a black or white issue. Match the event to the venue security and capacity. Simple isn't it? Simple Simon.

Freder Frederson said...

Having a secure ballroom adjacent to the White House avoids a large percentage of the security costs and eliminates potential attacks in public spaces.

I highly doubt that the government is going to rent out the ballroom for private events, which the WHCD is. And if they do start renting out the ballroom for private events, doesn't that compromise security at the White House?

Freder Frederson said...

Pure projection. The ballroom is high on the list of the media outlets' - and the legal-industrial complex's - obsessions.

Bullshit. Do I have to find you a list detailing Trump's obsession with his ballroom? He brings it up all the time, even at events and interviews that are about a different topic.

Enigma said...

@Freder --

Spoken as one who hasn't dealt with the metal detectors and x-ray devices in virtually every downtown DC building. Even a simple museum or Agency HQ can involve airport-level security. Human security for the White House grounds is "adequate."

I don't know the legality/suitability of the EW Ballroom as a rental forum, but there are events in all sorts of buildings nearby. Crack open Google Maps and turn on the overhead photo mode. The public used to be able to drive on the north side (Pennsylvania Ave), but Clinton closed that for security long ago. The guy who shot at the gray haired man who resembled Bill Clinton was to the north in Lafayette Square (facing south). As such, they now put up fences/cages all through that area too.

As I directly witnessed during a private Democratic Party event during the Biden Administration (with intense security), the hardcore guards behind the cages yell at tourists who happen to step off the PA Ave sidewalk to take photos. They had a rather German demeanor.

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ along with $1.8bn of Kleptocracy said...

Before the election, Trump voters said their top priorities were lowering prices and releasing the Epstein files. Now the same folks say their top priorities are building a gold ballroom for the White House and putting tariffs on Ford and GM.

A 90,000 sq ft extension to a 55,000 sq ft residence. Well obviously the residence will need to be demolished and rebuilt in proportion to the 'extension'.

Christopher B said...

The relevance of the WHCA Dinner assassination attempt to the ballroom is that a purpose built structure and a permanent part of the White House is more easily and completely secured than events held in non-permanent structures not part of the White House such as the tents currently used for large White House gatherings.

Freder Frederson said...

Spoken as one who hasn't dealt with the metal detectors and x-ray devices in virtually every downtown DC building.

Are you referring to me? I worked at the Pentagon. Granted, it was before 9/11, but I have certainly been there since, even attended a banquet in the Hilton ballroom the evening after Bush gave a speech there earlier that day.

Enigma said...

@Freder ---

I don't see another Freder, do you? If you haven't been there since 9/11 or COVID, you haven't been "there." Night and day. It's rather creepy now.

rehajm said...

The level of fucking stupid of ‘Trump’ is obsessed with his ballroom is off the scale

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Stoopid on steroids:

If security was the paramount concern, Trump would build his ballroom somewhere away from the White House

On site is the perfect location. If he wants to hold events away from DC he has Mar-a-Lago, which Clay Travis says is a better ballroom than the Hilton and the security is already layered. The ballroom, dear dense leftists, will provide a secure local venue for FUTURE presidents. Because Trump is a selfless builder that you don't deserve, but get to enjoy anyway.

You're welcome.

Eva Marie said...

@Peachy: those hair extensions must have gone up in price.
And thanks for Erin Molan. Never heard of her before this.

hombre said...

Other than TRUMP what’s the big deal? He’s raised the money. A ballroom seems preferable to a tent. I guess to partisan, corrupt DC judges everything involving Trump is a federal case.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Years ago Charles Krauthammer offered a different take on the Donald. Unlike lefty predictions about Trump, Krauthammer's thesis stands strong:

As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn't made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl's Hamburgers.
I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.
You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason some people do not like him is because:
(1) he is antithetical to the "good old boy" method of brokering back room deals that fatten the coffers of politicians;
(2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a president speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who he owes vis-a-vis donations;
(3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology;
(4) he says what he is thinking, is unapologetic for his outspoken thoughts, speaks very straightforward using everyday language that can be understood by all (and is offensive to some who dislike him anyway) making him a great communicator, for the most part, does what he says he will do and;


There's much more. You can find the column in WaPo archives March 2018 . Published before his death on June 21, 2018.

steve uhr said...

Lots of deflection here. Few people say there should be no ballroom. The problem is the nature size and design of the ballroom. The problem is all of these decisions are made unilaterally by one person with no congressional approval, as required by law, and no participation by the people or experts on historical renovation and the White House. The problem is Trump tore the east wing down with no input and after saying he would not.

At least admit that if this is okay, it would be okay for Trump to destroy the main residence and put up a mini Trump tower. Or replace the statute of Lincoln and his memorial with one of Trump.

Aggie said...

Talk about your deflection....... Out of curiosity, what law says that 'congressional approval' is required?

Dogma and Pony Show said...

What makes no sense to me is, if this is a question of whether POTUS can do this project himself or does he need Congressional approval?, why any entity other than Congress itself has standing to ask a court to stop him. Congress obviously hasn't objected to the project, either in court, through a formal resolution opposing it, or by taking the obviously extreme measure of impeaching him over it. Instead, with respect to one of the injunctions that halted the construction, standing was conferred on some random lady who asserted that the sight of a mammoth building in place of the former East Wing structure would be personally upsetting to her on aesthetic grounds. That was it!

But here's the thing: That lady isn't entitled to a WH ballroom of her choosing. Obviously, if Trump got Congress's stamp of approval on the project, with the same-size ballroom Trump is trying to build, that lady would no longer have any cognizable injury, claim, or standing. So how can she have those things now? It just points to the fact that this is fundamentally a question of which branch of govt has the authority, and the courts should only get involved if and when one or both of the other branches seek relief.

steve uhr said...

Aggie. Read the district court decision and then I’ll be happy to discuss. Of course much easier to simply attack the judge.

Rocco said...

Enigma said...
The DC Hilton is apparently a registered landmark. It was the site of many political events, so a teardown seems unlikely.

I think they should keep all of the bullet holes (if any) intact, just like the residents of Gettysburg did after the battle.

Eva Marie said...

“it would be okay for Trump to destroy the main residence and put up a mini Trump tower. Or replace the statute of Lincoln and his memorial with one of Trump.”
That’s ridiculous. A mini Trump Tower? A big beautiful Trump Tower and I’m in.

Lazarus said...

Congressional approval is required if federal funds are used. In this case, they aren't. A change as big as this though, would have been rubberstamped by some hand-picked commission if another president had tried it.

Strange idea of a "priority." Someone might have thought the White House needed a new cafeteria or better washrooms and brought that up before being elected president years later. Did that make the cafeteria or the lavatories any kind of priority?

Lazarus said...

Clay Travis: Meh. Have the Correspondents' Dinner at Mar-a-lago and you'd have to do a lot of fumigating afterwards. More than a few wine bottles would also be stolen.

Aggie said...

oh look, another 'deflection'. I didn't attack the judge. So, it looks like both of us don't know of any law that requires congressional approval for changes to the White House under a sitting president, as funded by private donation.

steve uhr said...

Judge Leon’s ruling granting preliminary injunction (March 31, 2026)

steve uhr said...

I did read the decision several weeks ago but don’t remember a specific statute. Sorry that you don’t have time

Greg The Class Traitor said...

steve uhr said...
The problem is the nature size and design of the ballroom.
The problem is you left wing scum bags just can handle President Trump getting to do anything.

The problem is all of these decisions are made unilaterally by one person

Article II
Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

If you have a problem with the President getting to wield his executive powers, you're a domestic enemy of the US Constitution.

with no congressional approval, as required by law
No, it isn't. As you admitted when you refused to state what law he violated.
The "judge's" opinion piece is worthless crap. His plaintiff has no standing, therefore the judge has no jurisdiction. That he didn't let that stop him tells us that everything else he writes is crap, too.

no participation by the people or experts on historical renovation and the White House.
And now we get to the other nub of the problem: Steve is a jock sniffer for "experts", who are uniformly worthless people who have nothing to offer the world, but demand to be paid off anyway.

Federal gov't architecture sucks because of the "experts". Excluding them is a feature

steve uhr said...

Greg. I guess I’m confused. I always thought Congress makes law and the executive must enforce the law. I guess Congress really has no power at all. Thanks for setting me straight

steve uhr said...

Re standing, even if you are correct (I don’t think you are) that doesn’t change the fact that there is a law and the president violated the law. It just means that particular plaintiff can’t bring the suit.

narciso said...

Day ending in y steve

narciso said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john mosby said...

Trump's opponents should welcome a big event venue on the WH grounds.

Why? Because his not-so-secret weapon is the Trump Rally. He got elected in 2016 because he could spend his own money to do these rallies out in the middle of Red-Land, and rely on the news networks to fill their gaping content hellmouths with him. The other side thought they were just holding him up to ridicule, but like the Sun (Son) worshippers in that classic Star Trek episode with the Roman planet, MAGA is not ridiculous.

Then in 2024, the Trump Rallies, expanded into some blue areas, had the added benefit of showing he could mobilize street fighters anywhere, if needs must. That also helped him win, by frightening the left out of some shenanigans.

Of course the Butler shooting was exploited to try to get him to stop having those rallies. And the WHCD incident is being exploited to get him to stop having even indoor off-prem events. To stop mixing with the people.

So a real smart Dem would say "Great! Build the thing now! Here's more money! Make it twice as big!" in hopes that he can be stuck on the 18 Acres for the rest of his term.

Then if their wildest dreams come true, their own Presidents won't have to do any of those gross baby-kissing events either, and can just put on agitprop productions in the new ballroom, choreographed (hee hee) to the last bit of business. Win-win! CC, JSM

Iman said...

“I worked at the Pentagon. Granted, it was before 9/11, but I have certainly been there since, even attended a banquet in the Hilton ballroom the evening after Bush gave a speech there earlier that day.”

Were you working the food or bottle service, Fredo?

readering said...

As I have written before, I don't see Trump limiting himself to speaking to groups of only 900. And no way the ballroom will be finished by April 2028.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

steve uhr said...
Greg. I guess I’m confused.
That's obvious

I always thought Congress makes law and the executive must enforce the law.
So, what's the law?

Re standing, even if you are correct (I don’t think you are)
You're wrong. "I walk by the White House and it will make me feel sad to see the new ballroom" does NOT give you standing to sue.

that doesn’t change the fact that there is a law and the president violated the law.
What fact that hasn't changed is that you've not provided ANY law that requires this

It just means that particular plaintiff can’t bring the suit.
No one can bring a suit, and therefore no judge has anything legitimate to say on it

Jim at said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim at said...

If security was the paramount concern, Trump would build his ballroom somewhere away from the White House.

I asked you before and you never answered: What place do you have in mind that would be more secure than the White House?

Jim at said...

Read the district court decision and then I’ll be happy to discuss. Of course much easier to simply attack the judge.

That court decision is full of shit.

Cite the law requiring congressional approval for White House renovations.

Jim at said...

change the fact that there is a law and the president violated the law.

Cite. The. Fucking. Law.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

So it's been 22 hours, and Steve still can't provide a law that Trump is violating.

Because there isn't one

jim5301 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.

Post a Comment

Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.