Court BLOCKS Trump’s Ballroom in Major Legal Defeat
23m 29s
A federal appeals court has halted President Trump’s $400 million plan to build a White House ballroom, ruling that such a major structural change requires congressional approval, not unilateral executive action. The judges dismissed Trump’s national security justification, deeming corporate sponsorship and the project’s opulence irrelevant to public safety. This legal setback reignites debates over presidential power and the limits of executive authority, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s potential role in checking presidential overreach. While the decision highlights concerns about political corruption and lack of accountability—particularly given the project’s proximity to Congress and its corporate financing—it has limited public resonance amid widespread economic hardship, rising inflation, job losses, and the ongoing war in Iran. Americans are increasingly aware of the disconnect between Trump’s vanity projects and tangible struggles like high gas prices and declining wages. Despite strong criticism of the project’s extravagance, public skepticism has hardened, with many dismissing such critiques as politically motivated. The controversy also extends to the Department of Justice, where a filing allegedly copied content from Truth Social, raising questions about legal integrity and political bias under new leadership. Ultimately, while the ballroom issue symbolizes broader concerns about executive overreach and democratic accountability, it remains overshadowed by pressing economic and foreign policy realities. The case underscores a growing public fatigue with political spectacle and a shift toward personal, lived experiences as the basis for political judgment.
Oh, welcome to another and special installment of Runaway Country. Um, it has been a week, I mean, it always is, but if you thought the biggest legal flight of the last seven days was going to be about immigration or tariffs, that is incorrect. A federal appeals court just slammed the brakes on Trump's favorite of all of his vanity projects, the White House ballroom. Um, it has turned the construction project into yet another battle over the limits of presidential power, joining me to discuss Trump's monstrous ego and monstrous real estate skills, Jennifer Palmieri. How are you, my friend? I'm so happy to see you. It's delightful to be with you. Um, it's, we're going to talk about, you've been on the road finding out what is actually happening in the country as part of your excellent series on Crooked Called Longplay. And I'm going to get, I want to get your sort of read on how this, I don't know, translates to actual American life. But first, this has been time marinating in the the swamp that is Washington DC under Donald Trump. Um, so this appeals court rules on Friday that Trump can't proceed forward with his $400 million White House ballroom attachment and said such a major alter, alteration requires congressional approval. Um, Trump has been saying for a while now that this ballroom renovation needs to happen for national security reasons. I believe the judges letting him proceed with like bunker renovations, but, um, putting in like a corporate sponsored ballroom doesn't qualify as national security. He has 14 days to appeal this to the Supreme Court. A couple hours ago, the Trump White House signal they very much were going to do that. It is a stupid fucking idea. This whole thing, but it is Jen worth talking about because it is once again putting the issue of presidential authority and presidential limits back on the front burner over there at the Supreme Court. And I kind of wonder what your level of optimism is that John Roberts is going to maybe curb some of the presidential executive power given a track record. I do think it matters because it did also in it's just like the perfect encapsulation because it's all right there on the House, the White House grounds, right? And one mile away from Congress, which is, you know, which, which have the authority to do this and should have done should, you know, should be involved and should be holding them and should be holding them accountable. I don't know what I mean, it's, uh, it's just like who is John Roberts? Because if you really, because it's a, it's a, it's a relatively, it's an inconsequential issue for voters. Well, well, let's return to that in a second, because, okay, we'll return that in a second, but I mean, I mean, it is not, well, I guess this, it is, it is inconsequential for, you know, the conservative ideology from when's John Roberts comes, right? So like undoing the voting rights act, that is important to, you know, that was like a, that is in line with ideology that John Roberts came to this Supreme Court with. But like helping Trump out with his ballroom is not. So if you want to, if you're like, irking to kind of stick it to Trump, that could be a relatively pain free way for the Supreme Court to do that, right? Because he, it does feel like he's acutely aware of the political veneer of, I mean, well, the political motivations of everything the court's done, but also how it's playing. And so when given a guinea, if you will, this could be that except they are such adherents of that unitary executive theory that like the idea that they're going to take, say no to Trump on something, other than tariffs, um, I guess because they all have stock portfolios and give a shit about big business and corporations, which they clearly do. This just, I don't know, maybe it's insignificant, maybe it's significant. I'm not lost. I mean, we're not Supreme Court experts, but it's, it'll be very interesting to see how it plays out. One thing is for sure though, Jen, like if, if, if the mad kings like palace doesn't proceed as planned, the mad king is going to definitely have a tantrum. I just want to refresh everybody with this video at his like most animated and engaged when he's talking about his ballroom. This is I think from May of this year when he gave, uh, I don't remember which outlet. Maybe it was ABC a tour of the ballroom grounds, aka the demolition site of history. So all of this was paid for by myself and because I keep hearing like, I'm not, we are making a gift of this one. This is a gift. This is not going to be paid for by the taxpayer. We have a judge that thinks it's a terrible thing that we're making a gift. He said it's terrible that we're making a gift that should be paid for by the taxpayer. That's what I've never heard before. Okay. I mean, just to be clear, like what I think a lot of people have found issue with is the idea that corporations are sponsoring the White House in what is clearly a corrupt arrangement and that both the American taxpayer and the American Congress should have a say. But it's also like, it's like the Cotari Air Force one. Yeah. Yeah. Which is like unnavigable in in hazardous situations. Right. Like it, you know, turns out you need some expertise to be, to be, you know, constructing or doing anything like around the United States. Like, you know, that kind of stuff also batters. But it does. I mean, it's this and the reflecting pool. Yeah. And the arch. Yes. Like, it is, I mean, it, you know, like you used to term mad king, but like, it is, it's like, that is, I mean, in some level, I mean, you know, obviously, like we're in the White House for, I've worked in that building for a long time. So I can't imagine how this is going to be. Right. It's just, it's just, yeah, it's just, and all the care that every president would, you know, and the way, you know, how, what you can and can't do in that house and what's restricted to and, and how everybody regards the party well as follow those rules. But it feels legacy ish, which I welcome. Any sign that he is focused on, you know, how it's going to be a departure. Right. I am like, I have a high, I'm like willing to tolerate a lot of stuff in order to get to that, to get to that point. You're like, if this means you're leaving, then let's talk about the building. Yeah. Oh my god, that, I mean, they're like every day, some like other like thing like tapped onto the wall from, yes, super glued onto the wall. I mean, he is an old, he's like, Ms. Havasham, like bouncing around in the attic and trying to figure out like, you know, whether he's that we're going to make it out of there. I mean, I do think there is, he is, I'm not playing armchair psychologist at addition to armchair Supreme Court analyst, but he is low to address his own mortality. He's like terrified of death and decay and decomposure, if you will. And, and the only way for him to really address it is through building monuments to his own ego, right? Like he won't, it, it, like come to terms with his own mortality. But this is, I think the way he expresses it is by an undue focus on gilded statues, gilded white oval offices, ballroom construction, arches, right? They're reflecting pool, like, yeah, this is like has so that he that Washington, he has, he has physically and forever changed Washington. There is a physical representation. There's going to be no matter sort of which direction you look down Pennsylvania Avenue, from the, you know, from where the arch is supposed to be on one end, out towards Arlington Cemetery, which is just, that is just what, you know, eats at me the worst, to the, you know, to the White House down down the other end of Pentafine Avenue, like that is, we are going to have to think of him. I mean, in some way, I feel like this, this presidency is going to leave a lot of marks on the constitution, on our democracy, on trust in elections, on divisions in the country. And there's, you know, in, he's going to make sure that we, that we look in Washington and we remember him. Pots of America breaking news is brought to you by Zippercruiter with everyday interactions becoming increasingly impersonal. Someone going just one extra step can be huge, like when my doctor takes the time to call me with test results instead of sending them electronically. They came back positive for gay. It makes me feel like a human being again. If you're hiring, great candidates can also go the extra step and tell you why they're interested in your job on Zippercruiter as a way to stand out from others in the pool. And Zippercruiter has a new feature showing you the most interested qualified candidates first, so you can meet the right people faster. Zippercruiter's powerful matching technology finds qualified candidates quickly. Candidates can tell you in their own words why they're interested in your job. So try Zippercruiter and meet great candidates who will go the extra step for your job. Four out of five employers who post on Zippercruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. Try it for free today at zippercruiter.com/cricot. That's zippercruiter.com/cricot. Zippercruiter, meet your match on Zippercruiter. The, the length of this saga. So I, I mean, you've been in the White House. You've been in many multiple White houses and things move slowly in Washington, right? So like, just to refresh everybody on the timeline, in October of 2025, the East Wing is demolished. I mean, like, I remember first reading about this and being like, what in the fuck? December of 2025, the National Trust for Historic Preservation sues the Trump administration. March of this year, the construction is halted. A district judge says that Trump needs Congress to sign off. In April, another appeals court says the construction is back on. And today, another appeals court blocks construction. So there is like legitimate, like, um, disagreement to, I, I guess, um, suggest that the Supreme Court could and would take this up. But this, the,
The fact that this saga is unfolding as Trump starts a war in Iran, gas prices go up. The, you know, the economy is now losing jobs. We are losing jobs, less, let 23,000 jobs last month, and then they downward provides numbers down. They've revised them, not downwards for March and April too, I think. And inflation remains outpaces wage growth. Banks are a cluster, I, you said at the top of this, that you think this doesn't matter and I guess to voters, but I do wonder whether the idea that he's so preoccupied with this building of monuments, his ballroom funded by corporate donations to the tune of several hundred millions of dollars while Americans can't afford gas, like whether it resonates on that level, like the juxtaposition that Trump has focused on and where their lives are at. So I know what you mean, I think it doesn't matter, I think it doesn't matter in relation to the Supreme Court in that no one there holds the sort of ideological view that Trump should be able to tear it on the White House, right? So it's like, it's a gimme for them. I had wished, I had been sort of disappointed that people don't care more about. >> Tell me more, because you're out there, like yeah, nobody brings it up. I mean, what people are upset about is the war in Iran, they're upset about that. They're attaching all of their, they're saying he's not doing what he said he was going to do in terms of focusing on the economy. That's the first thing you heard. And then the second thing you hear is concern about the war in Iran. He said it's going to end all foreign wars, and understanding that that's related to gas prices going up. And but then also just fear, you know, as in South Carolina, it's a big, the state with a lot of military families, one of the highest per capita in the country and then you just have fear about how it's going to impact the US, how it's going to impact the military, if it's going to put people in harm's way. But I think, and I had wished the same thing that you did, that the, the gilded Oval Office, the ballroom reconstruction, $400 million, like all of the focus on the ridiculous reflecting pool would resonate more with people. But at the sad thing, and even the corruption, well, I think it's really important to continue to call it out. And, you know, I think Senator Ossoff in particular is effective at this. I know you're like a, a watcher from like way back with that guy, he puts in a historic context in terms of why it matters to you. They are getting corrupt, they're bringing unlimited spending into government. And that is why, into politics, and that is, and because of that, and because they're doing all the bidding of corporations, that is why nothing is happening to solve your problems. So that's an effective argument, but when you, but unfortunately, the corruption is not a surprise with the Trump family, it's not a surprise to people. And it's not that, so people sort of become a nerd to it. So even though you would think that him focus on the ballroom and not on you is going to break through a lot, it's not, but part of the reason why it's not is because there's just facts of people's economic lives that are so dire that they don't need to understand that he's, they already know he's not focused on them. They're like, we're good. We know. We know. We don't need you to point out the stupid ballroom. They're like, I'm good. I was listening to Alex Tabit from MS now interviewed someone who was like, yeah, as far as Trump, I'm good. I've had enough. And it's like, that's kind of where everyone's at, right? They're like, yeah, oh, oh, really the ballroom that's who he's been focused on. I'm good. I got it. I got it guys. So you will appreciate this. I was driving last week, I guess, from Cosby, Tennessee to Nashville. And I passed a Trump super store on the side of the highway. And I was like, oh, God, it's enormous, right? And then right next to it, a full story high is a billboard that says going out of business sale. Amazing. And there you have the ladies and gents. And there you have it. So I called Gina, our producer right away to be like, did you get the Trump super store on your camera? She's like, yes, yes. We got. Can we show the ballroom out of business? Yes. That's exactly what it is. I mean, that was, it was really, yeah, I thought it was quite point yet. Yeah. So you're telling me, and I will just remind everybody, they're part of the reason that you are on the road is because of the excellent reporting, the great journalism that is happening is part of long play, which is your series that is going to be is airing in conjunction with the crooked on YouTube. And you're in Tennessee where, of course, there was a primary this week, the first time Tennessee voters have gone to the polls since the Voting Rights Act was effectively dismantled. This will be the first general where, you know, voters of color have been systematically disenfranchised, not for the first time, but most recently by the Supreme Court. And you're telling me that the corruption message, I'm hearing do things one, it's not that it's not working. It's just that people got it. It's like people, I guess, they don't need an extra reason that you don't, that you don't need to pile on with like, but he's focused on the ballroom because, and I think in some ways, I think that kind of pisses people off because it is, you know, I think that, um, it feels, um, it feels like a political attack, right? It's like, it's like, it's like, I don't need you to tell me that things are, like, I am going to believe, I am going to turn away from Trump or, you know, or not, not be as supportive of him because of how I know that he is impacting my life. Yeah. Like, and I don't want some Democrat to tell me that I need to be upset with them because he's focused on the ballroom. Got it. I feel like it's like, it's like, that, and one thing that's sort of positive in general that I feel like I'm seeing it is, you know, one friend of mine was like, are you saying there's a return to critical thinking and, uh, you're like, no, no, no, no, I don't want to go that far. I don't want to go that far. You know, me, I'm like, I'm, I'm sort of naturally an optimist. So I had to reign myself in, but it is kind of like, I do hear people say more, like, I know, and I've experienced, and in my life, um, when they're talking about reasons that they feel like they're no longer supporting Trump or they're, um, turning away from supporting Republicans, um, not while I heard or I saw online or something like that, they feel it, they feel it and it's in their own, um, experience. And that seems good. Yeah. That's positive. Hey, that is, uh, in a bad situation, that's a best possible outcome. Like they know it and they feel it and they don't actually need any more data. I will just say, as my last point, the saga of this insanity does not just end at the White House, it will extend as it has to the Department of Justice where it looks like as of this recording Todd, which is going to be confirmed as the attorney general who and Todd Blanche as the acting attorney general, I believe took dictation from Donald Trump when the DOJ made their last filing in this case to the judge where I just want to refresh people's memory. The language in this filing was literally cut and pasted from a truth social. This is just a little, oh my God, a little, uh, amused bush of the bat shit language that was in the last filing. The plaintiff, in this case, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which again is not a government agency of any type, never once denies that its lawsuit here is motivated by an irrational desire to stop anything associated with President Donald J. Trump, which even Democrat elected officials have labeled as Trump derangement syndrome or TDS. Because it is Donald Trump, a highly successful real estate developer who has abilities that others don't, especially those who assume the office of President Barack Obama, Joe Biden, this frivolous and maritalist lawsuit was filed again, it's called all caps, Trump derangement syndrome. That's when the, that was when he was the acting attorney general. This is in the filing. This is the actual file. This is the actual file, it makes what was, who was the woman that did his, uh, criminal cases? No, but like it makes Lindsey, Lindsey, Lindsey Buckingham, no, no, that's the one, that's the one who did the criminal case, tried to do the case against leticia James. I'm talking about the woman who represented Trump in court, like in 24 and 23 when he was, like, hop, something like that. Anyway, remember her, like, Alina Haba, Alina Haba, yeah, it's like, that was like, it's like, it makes her look like a genius. Yeah. Yeah. The fucking garbage that we are going to see more of as they petition the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That's it, Jen. Just mortifying. It's just, it's mortified. It's like mortifying to even just be alive. Can you imagine Eric Holder had filed that shit on behalf of Barack Obama and then was at acting attorney, but by the way, this did not come up at his hearing. This did not even come up at Todd Blanche's hearing. There was too much. There was too much. I'm also fascinated with what, like wanting to know what went down with a Jeanine Piero, which he came in with her box when she came into the White House in this huge box of evidence of like how the pool was all their fault. And I just love like, just imagine how frustrated, how pent up, like all the pent up, like
She's got about how she's been treated and how stupid everything is and all the stuff that she's been tolerating to like go on television and defend everything that these people do and then to finally like let loose with her box of evidence at the White House. I just fired. Don't yeah right she because she choked don't be the lawyer that stands in the way of Donald Trump and one of his vanity projects. Message to you Janine Piro message to you Todd Blanche. Jennifer Paul Meary my friend what times we live in what times we live in if you are not watching Jen do some real reporting on authentically important topics. Go watch long play because I don't know what you're doing and if you're not subscribed to this YouTube channel what are you doing. Are you doing everyone doing you get this stuff it's the most important region and politics it's driving our politics nothing stays contained in the South and that's like the theory behind the episodes. That is that I think it is the right theory plus like food so good I'm so jealous that you get to go report there's a lot of there's been a lot of good biscuits Alex. It's a cheesy grids and Charles in this morning. All right thank you all for listening Namaste Jen it's great to see you I hope I see you over biscuits and grids sometimes. Well gravy to.
Podcast Summary
Key Points:
A federal appeals court blocked President Trump’s $400 million plan to build a White House ballroom, ruling that such a major alteration requires congressional approval, not executive action.
Trump has claimed the project serves national security, but judges found corporate sponsorship and a "gilded" ballroom to be unrelated to national security, calling the justification frivolous.
The decision reignites debate over presidential power, especially under the unitary executive theory, with concerns that the Supreme Court—particularly Chief Justice John Roberts—might curtail executive overreach.
The project’s corporate funding and location near Congress have raised alarms about political corruption and lack of accountability, with critics highlighting the disconnect between Trump’s focus on vanity projects and public economic struggles.
The saga has gained public attention not just for its legal implications but for its symbolic nature—reflecting Trump’s obsession with legacy, ego, and physical monuments at the expense of real-world issues like inflation, job losses, and the war in Iran.
The Justice Department’s filing in the case allegedly copied language from Truth Social, raising concerns about legal professionalism and political bias, especially under new Attorney General Todd Blanche.
Public sentiment suggests that while people are aware of the corruption and extravagance, they are less responsive to critiques of the ballroom due to immediate economic hardships and distrust of political messaging.
Summary:
A federal appeals court has halted President Trump’s $400 million plan to build a White House ballroom, ruling that such a major structural change requires congressional approval, not unilateral executive action. The judges dismissed Trump’s national security justification, deeming corporate sponsorship and the project’s opulence irrelevant to public safety. This legal setback reignites debates over presidential power and the limits of executive authority, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s potential role in checking presidential overreach.
While the decision highlights concerns about political corruption and lack of accountability—particularly given the project’s proximity to Congress and its corporate financing—it has limited public resonance amid widespread economic hardship, rising inflation, job losses, and the ongoing war in Iran. Americans are increasingly aware of the disconnect between Trump’s vanity projects and tangible struggles like high gas prices and declining wages. Despite strong criticism of the project’s extravagance, public skepticism has hardened, with many dismissing such critiques as politically motivated.
The controversy also extends to the Department of Justice, where a filing allegedly copied content from Truth Social, raising questions about legal integrity and political bias under new leadership. Ultimately, while the ballroom issue symbolizes broader concerns about executive overreach and democratic accountability, it remains overshadowed by pressing economic and foreign policy realities. The case underscores a growing public fatigue with political spectacle and a shift toward personal, lived experiences as the basis for political judgment.
FAQs
The federal appeals court ruled that Trump cannot proceed with the $400 million White House ballroom renovation without congressional approval, stating that such a major alteration falls outside presidential authority.
The court determined that a corporate-sponsored ballroom renovation does not meet the standard of national security, which Trump has cited as justification for the project.
Trump has 14 days to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, during which the project remains blocked.
The case highlights a constitutional conflict over presidential authority, particularly the 'unitary executive' theory, and brings renewed focus on limits on executive power in major government projects.
Critics argue that corporate funding creates a corrupt arrangement and undermines transparency, suggesting that taxpayers and Congress should have a say in such projects.
The public is more focused on pressing issues like the war in Iran, inflation, job losses, and economic hardship, making the ballroom project seem distant or irrelevant to daily life.
Chat with AI
Loading...
Pro features
Go deeper with this episode
Unlock creator-grade tools that turn any transcript into show notes and subtitle files.