Trump’s Ballroom Blitz

The United States featuring Israel has been at war with Iran for six whole months now. And sure, the president cares, but sometimes it seems like he cares more about his ballroom. He wanted to talk about it when he was supposed to be doing a medal of honor ceremony back in March. "I believe it's going to be the most beautiful ballroom anywhere in the world and when you hear all that hammering out there, you know why the first lady is not thrilled exactly." Sometimes he uses foul language to describe what the White House looked like before he showed up with his bulldozer. "Normally I would have said it was a shithouse, but I don't want to say that." But just listen how happy he sounded talking about it Monday at a back-to-school event. "The kids can see construction. I love the sound of construction." Like the president, we hear it today explaining from Vox, we're going to talk at length about the ballroom because we got a lot of ballroom drama. We got cost drama, we got who's foot in the bill drama, we got legal drama, we even got implication drama coming up. Megan Rapinoe here. This week on Why Are You Like This I am talking with W. Kamal Bell and he is no stranger to creating his own lane. We dig into the wives behind some of his biggest decisions like holding space for Ted Danson to talk about his black face scandal, Kamal's approach to dealing with trolls and what he would have changed when interviewing the KKK. We also wonder if Megan Kelly is flirting with us. Like out the latest episode of Why Are You Like This, Wherever You Get Your Podcast, and on YouTube. Sara Blasky is an investigative reporter at The Washington Post and lately she's been investigating the president's big ballroom, which she'll be the first to tell you was kind of hard to see. Well I think most people in the city know that there are fences and fences and fences keeping all of us from the construction area. And so what any reporter see is basically what the president wants us to see. He has done a couple of tours of that area. And you'll see right alongside of it the great structure that's rising right next to the White House and that's going to be the ballroom/military complex. It's incredible. He's brought all the press corps out there and shown this massive hole in the ground at one point that construction was happening and now the more recent visits have shown that construction is above ground. There are one or two stories up at least in some parts of this ballroom. And so it really is taking shape. You can kind of see a building there now where there used to be a hole. And can you remind people what exactly we're building here and what it's going to look like as far as we know? To our knowledge there are kind of two parts. The below ground part, which is going to have some military facility. Sometimes they refer to this as the bunker. They've said that it's going to be nuclear-resistant at this point that it could withstand, you know, a direct hit of some sort. Not only is it drone proof, if it drone hits it, it bounces off, it won't have any impact. It's also supposed to have a state-of-the-art medical facility and some other national security-related things that perhaps they haven't told us about and shouldn't tell us about, right? And then there's what's above ground. And that is this 90,000-square-foot ballroom. And what's the construction like? I mean, this has been going on for almost a year-ish, and I'm guessing is going to take a fair amount more time. So the schedule that the government has said in its various court filings is that this won't be done until the summer of 2028. So we're still not even halfway, right? We're at the phase of construction where there's concrete and there's a lot of rebar. But it's the kind of concrete that starts looking like walls or at least columns and that kind of thing above ground. So it looks like a building and just looks like a really concrete structure. You know, none of the finishes are there yet. You know, the fundamentals of the structure are in place. And the government is saying they're 65% of the way done. They haven't explained that number, but that's what they're saying. And a lot of us were used to seeing pictures of that hole in the ground. I mean, between October and the beginning of this year, it was more of a demolition project than it was construction and they've really ramped up the construction in recent months. When President Trump pitched this idea to the American public, one of its chief selling points was you're not going to pay for it. My friends are, essentially, has that proposition evolved as well? Publicly, he continues to say that. So all of this was paid for by myself and because I keep hearing like, we are making a gift of this one. This is a gift. This is not going to be paid for by the taxpayer. But internally, my colleagues and I have gotten some records, basically budgets put together by the general contractor on the project that show not only is the price tag a lot higher than the president has said publicly, but also that about half of it is coming from American taxpayers. Yeah. From funds from the U.S. Secret Service in the White House Military Office and that is not something that we've heard the president acknowledge publicly to date and also to go back to that question of how much is this costing. Some of these internal records show us that originally it was going to be in that 200 million range that the president announced last year when he said he wanted to do this project. And then it bumped up to 400 million and we've heard him acknowledge that, he said. It's going to be close to 400 million dollars and it's all paid for by patriots and patriotic companies, big companies. At that point we can already see in the internal records that in fact the plan was to have part of it paid for by donors and part of it paid for by U.S. taxpayers. And then by March that price tag had gone up again to $600 million. That is the internal estimate for construction alone that doesn't include the design or anything like that but the construction itself so that demolition of the old east wing, the construction of what's going to be in its place. That includes the below ground stuff and the above ground stuff, the entire structure. $600 million is the estimate as of March. Again, half of it coming from taxpayers. Okay, so we went from 2 to 4 to $600 million and according to the schedule that the White House itself is putting out there, there's years of work that remain. Is that legal? Can he just say, oh yeah, it's going to cost double triple what I thought it would and also I'm pulling that money from the Secret Service, from the White House military office? In theory, in a vacuum, it kind of seems like no, Congress controls the purse strings. That's one of the powers of Congress. But in practice, the administration has made arguments that they believe they're allowed to do this through some legal mechanisms that have been set up that allow transfers of funds from one agency to another with a whole bunch of rules attached to it. It is beyond my pay grade, as they say, to determine whether this particular transfer of funds was legal. But one thing I will say is they've set up basically a piggy bank for their White House projects in this little known office called the executive residence. And the executive residence normally employs housekeepers or the calligrapher works in the executive residence. Okay. I didn't know there was a calligrapher. I'm going to be honest. The White House has a calligrapher. I approve. Yeah. And florists and housekeepers and all the people that maintain the executive residence, right? They have an annual repair and restoration budget of about $2.5 million. So that account, repair and restoration, which previously was for like, you need some new curtains or you need to maybe replace a floorboard or small things, right? That account is now being used to fund this ballroom. And so they're horing hundreds of millions of dollars into this account. It's now at, I think, over $800 million in that tiny account alone. And that's the fund they're using to pay. Wow. Much like leveling the East Wing itself, this all sounds very messy. Is anyone keeping track of the money that's coming in and going out to this project? This is a question that the Senate Appropriations Committee would take up potentially. There are staffers on the hill who are looking into these questions because the question of whether those transfers were legal is something that politicians on both sides of the aisle, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said they have questions about. Given the scale, visibility and long term implications of this project, an independent government accountability office review is essential to ensure accountability, transparency, and responsible management of federal resources and historical assets. Were these funds intended for something else? And if so, what were those things? And what is the legal mechanism used to transfer them for this project? And those questions have not been answered yet. They're just beginning to be explored. The Supreme Court had an opportunity late last year. this week to sort of halt the whole thing. As a lower court, I believe, wanted. But they said, nah, go ahead and we'll get to this when we get to this. - The Supreme Court is considering a case in which a nonprofit organization sued the federal government saying that they did not have the legal authority to knock down the former East Wing of the White House and then construct a massive 90,000 square foot ballroom in its place. And since about December, this court case has been working its way through DC District Court. Then there was recently a decision in an appellate court a few weeks ago, the appellate court upheld the determination of the DC Court, which said this was not legal. They need to go through Congress to do this work. And now it's on its way to the Supreme Court. And we actually just heard on Friday a preliminary decision that allowed construction to continue, at least for now, on the East Wing project until the Supreme Court has more time to consider. - One thing that occurs to me here is the amount of money we're talking about is orders of magnitude more than what this administration was spending on the reflecting pool earlier this summer. And yet earlier this summer, it felt like the whole country, maybe even the world had its eyes on that reflecting pool. And it became a huge controversy and a huge story. And yet it doesn't feel like people are that mad about what's going on in the East Wing with this ballroom project. Why do you think that is? - Well, I think the reflecting pool is quite literally out in public. People can see it and they can walk by it and they saw this whole thing unfolding. Whereas the East Wing construction is happening behind all these fences. You can't actually see it. There are a couple of vantage points in Washington. If you don't have access to the White House, there are only a couple of places you can go up on a couple tall buildings nearby where you can even see the construction site. And so I think for some people, it's a little out of sight, out of mind. But I will just also say this. I think Americans on both sides of the aisle, again, actually do deeply care about the ballroom. I think we're hearing from a lot of them. I'm sure you've heard from a lot of them. They have questions about the funds. They have questions about the priorities. They have questions about the president being part of some of the negotiations of the price of concrete himself when maybe he could have been focused on other things. There are a lot of questions. And so to the extent that the reflecting pool was more talked about earlier this year, I think it was just the visceral fact that we could all just see a green pool in the middle of National Mall. (upbeat music) - This ballroom business is about more than the ballroom according to one Ian Millheiser, who you'll hear from next on today, explained. (upbeat music) - Support for the show comes from Ship Station. If shipping is an essential part of your business, you can't afford to get it wrong. You need to get it right. You need your order fulfilled to be fast, efficient, and cost-effective. And with Ship Station, you'll have the tools you need to tackle all of your orders and keep your customers happy. Ship Station is an end-to-end order of fulfillment platform for e-commerce businesses powered by AI and trained on decades of data from billions of shipments across the world that adapts to a unique business, alerting you when stock is low, recommending the best carrier selections and rates and automating tasks to save you time. The sooner you switch, the sooner you start saving time and money. Get started with Ship Station today and get 60 days free at shipstation.com with the code today. That is shipstation.com code today. Shipstation.com code today. Taxes and fees apply, but you know, they often do. (light music) Are you stuck in a job working hard but feel like no matter what you do, you just can't seem to get ahead financially? Or maybe you've always felt like sales is something other people do. Not you? Well, this week on "Network in Chill," I'm chatting with Shelby Sapp, the internet's queen of sales, who teaches women how to pitch, close, and get paid. Whether you're gunning for a promotion, building your own business, or just trying to get a seat at the table, Shelby breaks down everything you need to know, the rich, closer mindset, the biggest sales myths holding you back and why learning how to sell is actually the fastest path to financial freedom. Listen, wherever you get your podcasts are watch on youtube.com/yourrichbf. - So, over the show comes from Apple News. Plus, Apple News Plus has everything you're into. News wise, of course, all in one place, over 500 publications covering the topics that matter most to you. I think you can even find vox in there. Thousands of recipes from celebrated food publications around the world, local news from all 50 states, heck yeah. Sports coverage from across the globe, heck yeah. Audio stories that can take you anywhere, love that. And daily puzzles, not my thing. Exclusive to Apple News Plus, all of it curated, just for you, new subscribers, try it for free for one month at news.appl/learn, in terms of play. (upbeat music) ♪ Yeah, you're working good ♪ - Bullroom, slash, military complex. It's incredible. ♪ Holding it in ♪ - Today, explain Sean Romance from now joined by Ian Millheiser, Senior Correspondent at Vox. Ian, people are saying this ballroom is illegal. - It's really cut and dry here. Yeah, the ballroom is illegal. Let me just walk you through the statutes here. The main law, I'm just gonna read this statute to you, says, (whooshing) - A building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the federal government in the District of Columbia without the express authority of Congress. - So, that sounds pretty clear. Like, I'm not a Supreme Court expert like you and even I understood that. - Yeah, really clear. The White House is a public grounds of the federal government within the District of Columbia. Trump is erecting a building on it. Sure seems illegal if he doesn't get congressional permission. - Then two months since Cruz started tearing down the East Wing of the White House without federal approval. - A U.S. court has ordered President Trump to halt the work on a $400 million ballroom being constructed on the site of the demolished East Wing of the White House. - The DC Court of Appeals rules that Trump's $400 million White House ballroom is unlawful and requires congressional approval. - So, how is the Supreme Court then on the way to rubber stamping this ballroom renovation? - In cases involving environmental laws, conservationist laws, historical preservation laws, Congress often passes laws because they want to maintain something beautiful. You know, think about something like the Grand Canyon. Like, we don't maintain the Grand Canyon because like people are gonna make a lot of money off of the Grand Canyon. We don't maintain the Grand Canyon as part of a crime prevention strategy. We maintain the Grand Canyon because it's gorgeous. (dramatic music) And we want people to go, be able to go and see this beautiful thing. And if someone were to like put a strip ball in like the side of the Grand Canyon, it would be less beautiful. And so, Congress could pass a law saying, no, you can't build there. We're gonna maintain this beautiful thing. There is a rule, it's called standing. (upbeat music) If you want to file a federal lawsuit, you have to show that you've been injured in some way by the person or the entity that you are suing. So, like, if you punch me in the face, I could sue you because you punching me in the face injures me. - Ow, Sean. - I would never, you would never, of course. You're totally nonviolent. But if you punch me in the face and one of our colleagues gets mad about it and wants to sue you over it. Ow, Sean. They can't do it because they haven't been injured by your fist, only I've been injured by your fist. - So, is that what's happening here? - Well, so the question essentially is whether someone has gotten a fist to the face, at least in a way that the law recognizes. And what the court has consistently said is that if you intend to go there and someone's gonna do something to this beautiful thing that's gonna make it less beautiful, you've been injured and you're allowed to sue. And that is the theory in this case. There is a woman she belongs to a conservationist organization that is the plaintiff in this case. She says that she frequently goes by the White House. She's actually a retired professor of architectural history. So she knows a lot about this stuff. She thinks that the White House is beautiful. She enjoys seeing it. She incorporates it into her research. And if the East Wing is replaced by this I sort of a ballroom, then it's going to be less beautiful. - It puts the emphasis on the wrong place. The emphasis should be on the White House, the center of our government, the head of state's house and office. And as said, it's a distraction. It takes all your attention to something big and irrelevant and asymmetrical. - It's called an aesthetic injury. If you feel like a defendant has taken a beautiful thing that is preserved by law and made it less, less beautiful, you are allowed to sue on your existing law. And the question is basically whether the sweepboard is going to change the rules to say that that's not enough. And what are the implications if they do? Because you wrote for our yellow website rocks.com that this isn't just about the ballroom. Right. I mean, the implications are enormous. If you take away the right to sue because, you know, something beautiful is being destroyed, then a whole lot of these conservationist laws, a whole lot of these laws are going with sacred sites and, you know, pristine sites, environmentally protected sites, just become unenforceable. I'll read to you what one of the lower courts said would happen if Trump's theory of who has standing were adopted. Under Trump's quote, cramped standing theory would deem no one injured by a decision to raise the statue of liberty to obscure the names of the Vietnam War memorial or to install a political billboard, a top Mount Rushmore. Wow. Think of why you go to see the statue of liberty. Like, I mean, you don't go to the statue of liberty because it makes you money. There's a material gain you get from the statue of liberty being there. There's a beautiful monument that we want to preserve. And if the government were, or some were to come and like tear the torch off the statue of liberty, the reason you would be harmed by that is because you would no longer be able to see this beautiful thing that used to be there. And so right now, the law allows you to sue to prevent that beauty from being destroyed. That's, that's the crux of this case, whether or not people are allowed to sue in order to prevent the destruction of something beautiful. But why would the Supreme Court want to give this president or any president the power to just run rough shot over our national monuments? It is an excellent question. I mean, there is one other aspect to this case that I haven't mentioned before, which baby driving the justice is thinking. And that's that the ballroom isn't the only thing that's being built at the White House. So. Right. Ballroom, below ground is this, it's like a five story like, you know, 50 foot deep bunker. And the White House tries to claim that the ballroom and the bunker are all one project. And so if you block the ballroom from happening, you are harming national security because you are preventing Trump from building this bunker. They're making the argument that this is all about security, that if they were to stop work on the ballroom, it would not only have an impact on national security, but on the safety of the president himself. You know, that started off as a ballroom. And before we started work, the military came to see me and they say, sir, we have an opportunity to do something incredible here. And we've been trying to do it for a hundred years. Parts tend to be very deferential to the president when he brings up national security. And so like, it's possible that the justice just don't want to second guess the president because he's used the magic words, national security. And do we have any evidence as to whether that was a strategy here to get this ballroom through? Well, as you say, clearly violating the law, I think it's probably a strategy here that, you know, it's savvy to tie it to national security. I also think it's kind of a dumb strategy, though, because like the thing that struck me when I was reading Trump's brief it is, I mean, like, I don't think you should have torn down the East Wing. And I don't think we need this eye sort of a ballroom that's completely changed the footprint of the White House. But I think the case for the bunkers actually pretty compelling. I mean, you know, this is the president of the United States, he's the commander in chief of the U.S. military. There are obviously like our enemies have a strategic interest in taking out the president or rendering the White House an operable if it can. And I think if Trump had gone to Congress and said, hey, like, there's a really strong national security deed for this bunker. Will you appropriate $400 million that I can build it? I mean, I think Congress would have said, yes. And like, then we wouldn't have a Supreme Court case over this. Then we wouldn't have a fight over it. Then they would have legitimacy. And then we wouldn't have the potential for the Supreme Court to make a decision that could actually have implications for all of our national parks and monuments. Well, the one thing that he probably couldn't have gotten money for, of course, is the ballroom. And that might be why Trump didn't go to Congress. Because if he had gone to Congress, they probably would have given him the money for the bunker. He would have built the bunker. But he would have had to put something that looks like the East Wing on top of the bunker and he really wants the ballroom. And so like, I think there is a bit of gamesmanship going on here where, you know, Trump's lawyers know that the Supreme Court often defers when the president says the words national security. And so if there's some way that they could present the ballroom as part of a national security project and not just as some Aussie-Mandy and Vanity project by Trump, then, you know, it's more likely that the part of the justice brains that turn off whenever they hear the words national security kicks in and the ballroom happens. Ian, Vox, Sarah, Wapo, Danielle Huitt, Miranda Kennedy, Gabriel Donatov, Patrick Boyd, David Tadassure, Dolly Parton, today explained.