Dem
47
GOP
53
When Donald Trump tore down the East Wing of the White House, he said people should not worry because he would create a place to hold his balls at "no charge to the taxpayer whatsoever." Well, maybe not. Earlier this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee requested a cool $1 billion for the ballroom, nominally to make sure Trump's balls are secure.
This raises a raft of questions. First, If Trump said the whole thing would be privately financed, what's the billion for? Second, why did Trump think it would cost $200 million initially if the Senate wants to appropriate more than five times as much? Third, if the taxpayers pay for it, what happens to the $300 million or now $400 million has already raised? Does Trump just keep it and we move on? Fourth, if so, does it count as an emolument? Fifth, does anyone remember that Trump v2.0 began with the DOGEys killing off government programs right and left, with no authority to do so, in the name of saving money. Does spending $1 billion on a ballroom save money?
Republicans are trying to connect this to the shooting at the D.C. Hilton. Is the idea that future WHCD dinners could be held in the ballroom? We suspect that journalists would not be happy holding an event to celebrate the First Amendment inside the White House, even if Trump charged them only $5 million to rent the space for an evening.
Politically, the ballroom was very unpopular even when it was going to be entirely privately funded. The appropriation is part of the new reconciliation bill, so Democrats can't filibuster it. This means it is likely to happen. However, then the Democrats can campaign on "The congressional Republicans cut your healthcare so they could spend a billion dollars on a ballroom for Trump." Wasteful spending is something even Republican voters don't like. Given the results in Indiana, if Trump says he wants the billion for the ballroom (so he can put the privately raised $400 million in his pocket), few, if any, Republican politicians will challenge him. In fact, some are already on board. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said: "I guess as long as liberals insist on shooting presidents, it will take a lot of resources to protect presidents. I'm fine with it."
If the ballroom ends up costing the taxpayers $1 billion, that could become a headache if a Democrat is elected president in 2028. If the funding were private, on Day 1, a new president could order the Army Corps of Engineers to just tear it down, saying private buildings have no place on public land. If the new president moved quickly and quietly, the building could be damaged beyond repair before any judge could order the demolition halted. Then it would have to be demolished. But if Congress pays for it, that argument goes away and it might be more complicated legally. Of course, if he new president wants to show how aggressively he is going to remove every trace of Trump's presidency, root and branch, he could just give the order anyway and let the chips (and faux-gold chandeliers) fall where they may. (V)