Trump’s Ballroom Blitz Can Continue for Now, Chief Justice Says

Trump showed off his White House projects this week.
Al Drago/Pool via CNP/INSTARimages
By Yuval Rosenberg and Michael Rainey

TGIF! Here's your update for this Friday evening in late August.

Trump's Ballroom Blitz Can Continue for Now, Chief Justice Says

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a temporary but significant win for President Trump on Friday, allowing construction on the White House ballroom to proceed while the legal challenges to the project play out. As Trump races to replace the demolished East Wing of the White House with a 90,000-square-foot ballroom atop a military and medical complex, Roberts entered an administrative stay that will give the Supreme Court more time to consider whether lower courts were right in ordering a halt to some of the construction.

Trump said in a social media post that he is "grateful" for the decision. "The Military/Ballroom Complex being built on the hallowed grounds of the White House, which is so vital for National Security, will be THE GREATEST OF ITS KIND!" he wrote, adding, "Construction is under budget and ahead of schedule."

A federal district court and an appeals court in Washington, D.C., had both ordered a halt to aboveground work on the project, ruling that Trump likely exceeded his authority by starting demolition and construction without congressional approval. Both of those courts allowed work to continue while the administration appealed, though the halt was set to take effect on Friday unless the Supreme Court intervened.

In an emergency appeal to the high court last Friday, the administration said that the president has the legal authority to alter or improve the White House and that the project was already 65% complete, making it too late to stop work. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that a halt to construction would raise national security concerns. Though Trump had repeatedly insisted that the White House needs a large ballroom to host VIP guests, he and the administration shifted their description of the project more recently to emphasize its military and security aspects, arguing that the various elements comprise one integrated whole.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the lawsuit seeking to block the ballroom, says that the Trump administration has no authority to build the ballroom without approval from Congress and can't use national security to bypass the Constitution. It argues that the administration is trying to outrun the courts and the rule of law by speeding up construction and contesting the authority of judges to stop the project. The administration said that a 250-person crew has been working 20 hours a day, seven days a week to complete the work.

While the Roberts order allows all construction to continue, it does not address the underlying legal dispute. The full Supreme Court reportedly is expected to weigh in on whether construction can continue while the litigation plays out — but there's no indication when the court might hand down a broader decision in the case.

The bottom line: Trump has racked up a number of wins — and some losses — at the Supreme Court as he asserts unprecedented presidential power. This latest one means that his ballroom blitz can continue, at least for now.

Number of the Day: 13%

Enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, fell by more than 13% over a 12-month span, according to preliminary federal data reported by the Associated Press. Enrollment fell from 42.2 million in May 2025 to 36.6 million this past May, a much steeper than projected after Republicans introduced tighter work requirements in their One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Advocates warn that many beneficiaries are falling off because of administrative complications, like missed deadlines or paperwork requirements. States have also faced challenges in enacting the federal changes. "Implementing the federally mandated changes triggered unprecedented call volumes and administrative hurdles, including additional verification requirements, creating real barriers for applicants," said Brett Bezio, a spokesman for the Arizona Department of Economic Security.

Proponents of the GOP reforms suggest that the drop may reflect a natural regression from a post-pandemic peak, and they argue that the policy change may be having the intended effect of driving people to work and eliminating fraud.

Read more at the Associated Press.

Trump Pauses Beef Tariff in Bid to Lower Prices 'a Little Bit'

Facing pressure to do something about the high prices of basic goods affecting millions of American consumers, President Trump said Friday that he would allow more ground beef to be imported without triggering a punitive tariff.

In a post on his social media platform, Trump said he would suspend the "out of quota tariff" on 300,000 metric tons of ground beef entering the United States over the next 90 days, allowing the product to enter the country without activating a higher tariff that kicks in when specific, predefined levels are exceeded.

In addition, Trump said that he has a commitment from suppliers that the beef will be sold at 25% below current market price. The current average price of ground beef is $6.89 per pound, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Trump provided no details on how the plan will work, but we will likely learn more when he signs an executive order on the matter, which White House officials say will occur within the next two weeks.

Trump did say that the tariff suspension was intended to give U.S. ranchers time to rebuild their herds. Domestic ranchers, though, typically oppose higher beef imports, arguing that the competition lowers their profits and reduces their motivation to grow their herds.

Sen. Tim Sheehy, a Montana Republican allied with the ranching industry, said he has advised Trump not to allow more imports. "The President's heart is in the right place on wanting lower prices for the American people, and beef prices have been impacted by the Mexican screwworm," Sheehy said on social media. "But the reality is this action will make it more difficult for American ranchers to rebuild our herd and bring prices down for the American people. And most importantly, this will harm our ranching families who feed the nation."

Bill Bullard, the CEO of R-CALF USA, which represents independent cattle producers, offered a similar view. "Imports have been a major contributor to the decline in the U.S. cattle inventory," he said, per the Associated Press. "Using more imports today will exacerbate that decline, and will prevent herd expansion."

Trump defended his move Friday afternoon, saying it would bring prices down "a little bit."

"The ranchers are great; they're my people. I love the ranchers. They've done a fantastic job," Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington. "But they admit that we need a little help, and in order to get the prices down, so that's what we're doing."

A tacit admission? Trump and his advisers continue to insist that tariffs do not raise prices for U.S. consumers and instead are paid entirely by exporters. The vast majority of economists reject this view, arguing instead that, as a general rule, tariffs are paid by U.S. importers, who then pass some portion of the cost onto consumers - a position that has the advantage of being backed up by numerous empirical studies.

University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers is one of the many experts who see tariffs as a tax paid by Americans through diminished profits and higher prices on goods. Writing on social media Friday, Wolfers noted that Trump is attempting to lower prices by cutting tariffs. He asked whether there might be a lesson in that. "I'm wondering if he could generalize from this one product to other products, and perhaps concede that tariffs raise prices on American consumers," he asked.

Joey Politano, an independent economic analyst who has written on the subject, noted that there is something of a pattern at work. "[E]very 6 months the Trump administration realizes lowering tariffs will lower prices, applies this insight to one specific good, and then proceeds to never introspect beyond that," he wrote in a post on X. "It's honestly beautiful in its stupidity."

Fiscal News Roundup

Views and Analysis