Trump's plan for White House ballroom sparks outrage from his critics
The construction of the ballroom, the cost of which the White House says will be covered by Trump and other donors, will begin in September.
Trump is also paving the White House Rose Garden (though the rose bushes will be saved), which the White House says is necessary so people can walk more easily for events held in the space.
And he's added his personal gold touch to the Oval Office.
Trump says he sees the ballroom as a way to add to his legacy.
And while detractors say his decorative and more substantial changes are out of touch and ostentatious, he says they are necessary.
'I always said I was going to do something about the ballroom because they should have one,' he told reporters Thursday. 'So we'll be leaving it, it will be a great legacy project. And, I think it will be special.'
When asked if any government funds will be used to construct the 90,000 square foot facility, Trump replied, 'no government dollars, no.'
The White House said the sprawling event space will be built adjacent to the White House where the East Wing sits.
The goal is to complete construction before the end of Trump's term in January 2029. Trump's vision is for a space where he and future presidents can host state dinners, large gatherings with business leaders and other ritzy parties or functions.
'We've been planning it for a long time,' Trump said. 'They've wanted a ballroom at the White House for more than 150 years. There's never been a president that was good at ballrooms. I'm really good.'
Democrats and regular Trump critics offered a sharp pushback on his plans.
'This is what DOGE was all about, folks,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a video posted to social media hours after the White House announcement, referring to the president's Department of Government Efficiency. 'Cutting things from you, and giving it not to some place that needed it, giving it to the big shots who run the show, Donald Trump at the top of the list.'
Others suggested Trump and his White House were planting an intentional distraction.
'You gotta hand it to MAGAs, for about a week they really did have everyone convinced they cared about kids and The Epstein Files,' journalist and pundit Seth Abramson wrote on social platform X. 'On to more important things! Did you hear Trump is building a $200M ballroom at the White House? Wowee!'
The White House pushed back on those criticisms in a Friday statement to The Hill, saying 'as President Trump has said, for over 150 years, many presidents, administrations, and staff have all wanted a ballroom, and now we have a president who will accomplish building it.'
'President Trump is the best builder and developer in the entire world and the American people can rest well knowing that this project is in his hands,' a West Wing spokesperson said. 'Many future presidents and American citizens will enjoy it for generations to come.'
The president, a longtime real estate mogul who is known for a hands-on approach in the design and construction of his resorts, golf courses and skyscraper office buildings, has long lamented the lack of sufficient event space at the White House.
'When it rains it's a disaster, and the tent's 100 yards, that's more than a football field away from the main entrance,' Trump said as part of his remarks to the press about the project. 'And people are shlopping down to the tent; it's not a pretty sight. The women with their lovely evening gowns, their hair all done, and they're a mess by the time they get [there].'
There is longstanding precedent for presidents and first ladies putting their spin on the White House and its grounds.
President Harry Truman oversaw a massive renovation from 1948 to 1952 that required he and his wife to move into the Blair House at the time and saw the White House completely gutted.
Former first lady Jackie Kennedy, however, championed the historic preservation of the home and advocated that extreme renovations require oversight from the Committee for the Preservation of the White House.
'Every president and first family does make a mark on the White House — they already are a part of history and that snapshot in time,' said Anita McBride, former chief of staff to then-first lady Laura Bush. 'Since the cornerstone was laid, there have been additions, there have been changes that, at the time those happened, raised concerns.'
The White House Historical Association welcomed Trump's planned ballroom.
'The history of the White House has evolved over 233 years since the cornerstone was laid in 1792. The South Portico, the North Portico, the East Wing, the West Wing, and the Truman Balcony all raised concerns at the time — but today, we can't imagine the White House without these iconic elements,' Stewart D. McLaurin, president of the association, told The Hill.
He added, 'Since our founding by First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy in 1961, we have supported and partnered with every president and first lady caring for and adding to the White House and its Collection. We work to preserve the history of this remarkable museum, home, and office for generations to come.'
Some agree with the president that a bigger events space at the White House is long overdue.
'I can understand why someone who thinks on a grand scale, as obviously President Trump does, would want this ballroom added,' said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. 'That being said, the optics for people who disagree with this president, it will probably have an impact on how they view this.'
McBride agreed that the tents on the lawn, which have been constructed during more recent administrations, are not ideal.
'That doesn't come without challenges, putting up staging, putting up a covered structure, getting people to the actual location; dealing with inclement weather. And you're not really having your event in the White House,' she said. 'So you can see where that makes sense.'
There are lingering questions about what the new ballroom location will mean for the staffers who work in the East Wing, which is where first lady's staff works. The East Wing is also where tours of the White House for the public are conducted.
'Betty Ford always called the East Wing the 'heart' of the White House,' McBride said. 'All the business and policy gets done in the West Wing, that's critically important. But the heart of the White House is the East Wing. And so what, what will be the new East Wing?'
Others see the construction of an opulent addition to the president's residence as a matter of bad timing and poor optics given sluggish jobs reports and fears about how global tariffs might hurt the U.S. economy.
'This isn't something that's going to make or break another election, but it does add another page to the catalog of hypocrisy that these people read from when they want to lecture Americans about fiscal responsibility,' said Antjuan Seawright, a Democratic political strategist. 'It's a visible middle finger to working class Americans, many of whom voted for him.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Microsoft Cuts More Jobs in Washington as AI Spending Surges
Microsoft (MSFT, Financials) trimmed another 40 roles in Washington, pushing local cuts since May to 3,160. Worldwide, more than 15,000 jobs have been shed as the company pours record sums into artificial intelligence. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 7 Warning Sign with MSFT. The new reductions are separate from larger rounds earlier this year. Microsoft isn't detailing which teams were hit but says affected staff will receive severance and job?search help. Some have already found other roles inside the company. These moves come as Microsoft spends more than $30 billion this quarter on AI infrastructure a push that CEO Satya Nadella admits can feel at odds with cutting jobs. The company's headcount has held steady at about 228,000, even as it invests heavily in growth areas. Shares rose 2.2% Monday, giving Microsoft a $3.98 trillion market value after briefly topping $4 trillion last week. Investors will be watching how it balances AI bets with workplace stability. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.

Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mexican ranchers struggle to adapt as a tiny parasite ravages their cattle exports to the US
The United States' suspension of live cattle imports from Mexico due to a flesh-eating parasite is forcing ranchers to pivot their businesses to sell cows domestically at a loss (AP video/Abraham Téllez)
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
My Honest Opinion of Energy Transfer Stock
Key Points Energy Transfer operates in the midstream sector, using a largely fee-based model. The master limited partnership has a lofty 7.4% distribution yield. There are lower-yielding midstream companies that I prefer over Energy Transfer. 10 stocks we like better than Energy Transfer › I recognize that there are good reasons for investors to buy Energy Transfer (NYSE: ET) today. I can even appreciate that the master limited partnership (MLP) has taken important steps to strengthen its business in ways that should appease the concerns I have about the investment. Yet, I still think alternatives like Enterprise Products Partners (NYSE: EPD) and Enbridge (NYSE: ENB) are better. Here's my honest opinion of why Energy Transfer isn't the best option in the midstream space. What does Energy Transfer do? Energy Transfer helps to move oil and natural gas around the world. It owns a collection of energy infrastructure assets, like pipelines, that generate reliable fee-based income. Without the assets Energy Transfer owns, producers wouldn't be able to get their oil and natural gas to processors and refiners, or the end consumer. From this perspective, Energy Transfer's core business is pretty similar to that of fellow MLP Enterprise Products Partners and Canadian midstream giant Enbridge. But Energy Transfer's distribution yield is 7.4%, versus a yield of 7% for Enterprise and dividend yield of 6% for Enbridge. The yield difference here matters. You are taking a higher risk with Energy Transfer For starters, Energy Transfer is, in some ways, a much more complicated business than Enterprise or Enbridge. They all own a host of assets, but Energy Transfer is also the general partner for two other publicly traded MLPs. That's not the biggest part of its business, but it makes things a bit more difficult to track. This alone wouldn't be enough to stop me from buying Energy Transfer, but it does give Enterprise and Enbridge, which are simpler businesses to understand, an edge in my book. The big problem comes down to trust. Enterprise has increased its distribution annually for 26 consecutive years. Enbridge's dividend has grown for three decades. Energy Transfer cut its dividend in 2020, right when most income investors would have likely wanted dividend consistency given the pandemic and bear market at the time. If this were the only issue, since the dividend is back on the growth path and above where it was before the cut, I might be able to overlook it. But there's more. In 2016, Energy Transfer agreed to buy Williams Companies (NYSE: WMB). But an energy downturn at the time led to management getting cold feet. It scuttled the deal, which might have required taking on a huge amount of debt, a dividend cut, or both. This was probably the right move, but it issued convertible securities as part of the process of killing the deal. The CEO at the time bought a material amount of the convertibles, which appeared as though it would have protected him from a dividend cut if one were needed. Even years later, I still can't help but wonder if insiders get favored more than investors at Energy Transfer. There's no similar event at Enterprise or Enbridge and, thus, I trust these two midstream competitors more. Add it all up, and I can't justify buying Energy Transfer Yes, Energy Transfer has a slightly higher yield than Enterprise and Enbridge. But the added risk I'd be taking on, notably on the trust side of the equation, isn't justifiable in my book. I'm happier with lower yields and more trust. After all, it's not like Enterprise or Enbridge have low yields. They're just lower than Energy Transfer's yield, which makes sense when you consider the risks here. Should you invest $1,000 in Energy Transfer right now? Before you buy stock in Energy Transfer, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Energy Transfer wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $631,505!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,103,313!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,039% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 181% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025 Reuben Gregg Brewer has positions in Enbridge. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Enbridge. The Motley Fool recommends Enterprise Products Partners. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. My Honest Opinion of Energy Transfer Stock was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data