Trump’s Ballroom to Cost $600 Million, With Half Publicly Funded: Report

Trump ballroom construction site
Reuters
By Yuval Rosenberg and Michael Rainey

Happy Tuesday! On this date 11 years ago, reality TV star and real estate mogul Donald Trump descended the golden escalator in New York's Trump Tower to announce his 2016 presidential campaign. And on this date in 1858, Abraham Lincoln accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination for the U.S. Senate and then delivered his famous address warning that "a house divided against itself cannot stand."

Here's your evening update.

Trump's Ballroom to Cost $600 Million, With Half Publicly Funded: Report

The grand ballroom being built by President Trump on the White House grounds could cost about $600 million, with more than half of that coming from public funds, according to estimates reported Tuesday by The Washington Post.

The numbers, which come from a detailed project summary prepared in March by the main contractor on the project, contradict Trump's repeated claims that the ballroom would be privately funded, as well as his estimates of the total cost.

"It's going to cost nothing," Trump said in February 2025, soon after entering the White House for the second time. "I will spend the whole thing myself."

The president later said that private donors would join him in funding the project. Announcing that construction would soon begin, the White House said in July 2025 that the ballroom would cost $200 million, with the bill paid by "President Trump, and other patriot donors."

By March of this year, the cost cited by Trump had doubled to $400 million, but the pledge that the project would be privately funded remained in place. "This is taxpayer-free," Trump told reporters on March 31. "We have no taxpayer putting up 10 cents."

A much larger number: The internal documents obtained by the Post tell a different story. Clark Construction, the contractor in the ballroom project, reportedly told the White House in March that the estimated cost had risen to $600 million. Of that, $293 million was described in a project summary as coming from "private sources." The other $307 million would come from publicly funded sources: the Secret Service ($155 million), the White House Military Office ($149 million) and the Executive Residence ($3 million).

Adding security: After an assassination attempt on Trump in a Washington hotel in April, the White House started to claim that the ballroom is essential for national security. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced legislation that would provide $400 million for security enhancements for the ballroom project, including extensive underground features. Republicans then sought to add $1 billion for the Secret Service to their $70 billion reconciliation bill, with some of the funds to be used for security. But the Senate parliamentarian ruled against the funding on technical grounds, and Republicans, facing stiff opposition from Democrats and no small degree of skepticism from the public, dropped the issue.

Republicans have cited the security elements to justify the use of substantial public funding for the project, but critics have charged that the White House has sought to blur the line between the privately and publicly funded elements. A federal judge who has ruled that the ballroom needs congressional authorization described the mix of private and public funding involved in the project as a "Rube Goldberg" device designed to avoid oversight by Congress.

According to the documents seen by the Post, the White House sought to emphasize the security elements of the project, even for activities such as site preparation, which was to be paid for in part with $3.6 million in Secret Service funding. A White House lawyer said in an email that she had tweaked the language in the contract "to tie the project more closely to security-related issues since [U.S. Secret Service] is providing the funding." Another $1.6 million in Secret Service funding was earmarked for the demolition of the White House East Wing in October 2025.

The Post spoke to a federal contracting expert who questioned the connection between building demolition and the congressionally funded role of the Secret Service. "That is a stretch," the former federal official said. "How is that something Secret Service should do and fund?"

Will Republicans continue to support? Trump's supporters in Congress have defended the ballroom, frequently citing the claim that no public funds would be involved in the project. House Speaker Mike Johnson has been a notably enthusiastic supporter. "President Trump's going to add the greatest improvement to the White House in the history of the building since it was originally constructed in 1800," he said last October. "The ballroom is going to be glorious. ... This is for the American people. And he's using private funds to do it. How in the world could they oppose that?"

Rep. James Comer, the Kentucky Republican who leads the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has also spoken glowingly about what he has claimed is a privately funded project. "The ballroom is gonna be paid for with private money. To me, that's a win," he told News Nation in April.

Some Trump supporters have framed the discussion about the ballroom funding in distinctly Trumpian terms. Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, who sits on the Budget Committee, criticized the "FAKE NEWS media" for "once again twisting the facts and pushing a completely FALSE narrative about White House ballroom funding!!" In a statement last month, Norman insisted that the "brick-and-mortar construction is being privately funded by President Trump and private donors - NOT taxpayers."

Norman also accused the media of acting "as if this is some selfish vanity project," while firmly declaring, "It's NOT!!"

Democrat claims corruption: Whatever approach Republicans take, Democrats have been given new ammunition to use in their battle against the ballroom. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said the Post report shows that Trump is running the "most corrupt administration in American history."

"American families cannot afford food, gas, healthcare or rent. Instead of doing anything to provide relief, President Trump spent tens of millions of your tax dollars on his ballroom vanity project and then lied about it," she said Tuesday. "According to this report, the administration committed months ago to spending at least $300 million of taxpayers' money on the ballroom vanity project and they have been lying about it since. While families struggle to afford basic necessities, the only things the Trump administration can provide are slush funds for criminals, fistfights on the South Lawn, and ballrooms for billionaires."

Republicans Block Dems' Attempt to Ban Trump's 'Anti-Weaponization' Fund

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a Democratic attempt to ensure that the Trump administration can't create a $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tried to get unanimous consent to pass a measure prohibiting the "anti-weaponization" fund and nullifying a deal that shields President Trump from IRS audits of past tax filings, but Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee blocked the request.

Schumer argued that Trump still intends to create the fund and that a legislative ban is the only way to ensure that doesn't happen and that the Justice Department's settlement deal barring further scrutiny of Trump's past tax filings is voided. He slammed Republicans for passing up multiple chances to formally block the payout fund and prevent rioters who attacked the Capitol on January 6 from getting compensation.

"Republicans need to stop playing dumb and realize Trump has absolutely zero intention to table his slush fund," Schumer said on the Senate floor. He cited the president's recent comments calling the fund a "great idea" and "a beautiful thing" and his claims that other Republicans also support it.

"I invite Republicans to prove Trump wrong," Schumer said. "Support this bill, outlaw this corruption, say it is a terrible idea on the floor so we can eliminate it permanently once and for all."

Schumer also criticized Republicans for accepting the word of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who told a congressional panel early this month that the Justice Department was not and would not be moving forward with the fund. "Republicans seem to think that a promise from Todd Blanche, who built his career on bending the truth in service to Trump, and a hope and prayer that Trump will suddenly find a conscience are enough to stop the slush fund," he said. "Makes no sense."

In blocking Schumer's request, Hagerty argued that Blanche had testified that the Justice Department is not moving forward with the fund.

"Why is that not enough for my colleagues from across the aisle?" Hagerty asked. "Because they have a deeper and much darker motive. They want to erase the Biden Justice Department's unprecedented weaponization by abolishing every means of holding it accountable. I'm not going to stand for it."

Hagerty added that he won't seek any compensation from the anti-weaponization fund after having his phone records subpoenaed by the Biden administration and that Trump has made clear that he would not seek money from the fund either.

In one of the lawsuits seeking to block the fund, a federal judge has given Justice Department officials until Friday to demonstrate that the legal challenge is moot by declaring under penalty of perjury "that they will not take any action to create or operate the Anti-Weaponization Fund, and that the Anti-Weaponization Fund will not proceed in any manner, or under any name."

The bottom line: The fight over the fund continues. Democrats scored a political point with Schumer's request, but the ongoing backlash to the fund could present an obstacle for Blanche as he seeks Senate confirmation to head the Justice Department on a permanent basis. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, who opposes the fund, has said that uncertainty over its status could lead him to oppose Blanche's confirmation, which would be enough to block it. "It will be an issue if the weaponization fund isn't effectively dead by the confirmation hearing, because I've still got a real problem with it being out there," Tillis told reporters.

Quote of the Day

"I can't commit to any of the fiscal tools the administration may or may not use in the future."

− Hal Duncan, President Trump's nominee to serve as deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, refusing to rule out future use of "pocket rescissions" during a Tuesday hearing of the Senate Budget Committee.

The White House used a so-called pocket rescission toward the end of the last fiscal year to unilaterally cancel nearly $5 billion in foreign aid funding that Congress had approved. The move angered many lawmakers, including Republican appropriators who objected to the administration encroaching on their power of the purse.

"Pocket rescissions have been executed by previous administrations, notably the Ford administration," Duncan said during his hearing Tuesday, according to Politico.

Duncan is set for another hearing Wednesday, this time before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Former Social Security Chief Calls to Eliminate Payroll Tax Cap

Former Social Security Administration Commissioner Martin O'Malley said Monday that he believes the income cap on payroll taxes should be eliminated to help improve the finances of the Social Security system.

Currently, individual income above $184,500 is shielded from payroll taxes, providing a tax break for a relatively small minority of high earners.

"It's only 6% of us that experience any benefit from the cap and an even smaller percentage - three or four - who benefit from scrapping the cap on income above $250,000," O'Malley told Blake Burman of NewsNation, per The Hill. "Most Americans ... think it is unfair that wealthy people don't pay the same tax rate as a custodian in a school or a teacher."

O'Malley's comments come on the heels of the latest report from the trustees of the Social Security program, which shows that its main trust fund will be exhausted in 2032, resulting in a 22% cut in benefits if Congress fails to act.

The report has sparked a new round of debate over the need to repair Social Security's finances.

Number of the Day: 28

The House is out this week and when lawmakers return next week they will have only 12 workdays before they are scheduled to take a five-week summer recess in August. The House is also set to take a weeklong pause after July 4. And Congress' schedule hardly improves from there. As is typical for an election year, both the House and Senate are scheduled to adjourn for almost all of October and the first week of November as members of Congress campaign in their own districts.

The result, as congressional reporter Jamie Dupree noted yesterday: The House has a grand total of 28 days of work left before the midterm elections.

The schedule means that lawmakers have relatively little time to take care of pending business, including the ongoing appropriations process for FY 2027. Some Republican and Democratic lawmakers suggest that the odds of another shutdown shortly before Election Day are heightened because of partisan clashes over spending levels and expectations that Democrats may win control over one or both chambers of Congress, giving them more leverage over funding decisions next year.

Fiscal News Roundup

Views and Analysis