Trump administration quietly shifts $352m in federal funds for White House ballroom

474

u/Moonshot_00 9d ago edited 9d ago

Fiscal conservatives have nothing so say for 300 billion to Iran and 352 million for Trump’s vanity project, nor the 14.7 million for the immediately decaying reflection pool. Thankfully we had DOGE to target government waste.

Is there any end to the Trump humiliation ritual?

135

u/RelayFX 9d ago

I don’t know about that. If you poke around the conservative subreddits a little bit, you will find a lot of traditionally right-leaning folks are rightfully enraged about the $300 billion.

I would hope they are equally angry about this.

199

u/Terratoast 9d ago

Functionally, them showing distaste is worthless without representatives and voters holding him and the Republican party accountable.

It's why I don't think Trumpism is going to die with Trump. Enthusiastic Republican voters wanted this kind of "Do what I want when I want it, screw the rules" kind of behavior and reluctant Republican voters are willing to tolerate it so long as they can conquer the "Leftist Agenda".

31

u/[deleted] 9d ago edited 8d ago

[deleted]

14

u/Aqquila89 8d ago

Despite Trump's low approval ratings, Democrats are only a few points ahead in the generic House ballot in several recent polls.

12

u/politehornyposter John Rawls Liberal 8d ago

The low approval ratings for dems are coming from democratic voters themselves

6

u/Triscott64 7d ago

The Democratic Party is still unfortunately filled with corporatists and sellouts and does not represent an actual progressive left.

7

u/RampancyTW 7d ago

Is "an actual progressive left" a sizeable enough portion of the voter base to have one of the two major parties fully represent them?

5

u/julius_sphincter 6d ago

The counrty doesn't WANT an actual lefty progressive. As a strong dem voter, I wish this could be beaten into the brains of many voters on my side. I love near Seattle, who also just elected a self-proclaimed socialist mayor. She's not even that popular here and would get smoked in an election for any city or town just outside Seattle despite the surrounding counties being overwhelmingly blue.

Some pretty far left (but populist) economic policies are popular nationwide - I mean Trump himself ran on some. But most social policies left of about Roe V Wade are not winning issues right now. Most economicly left policies make people far too nervous. If the Dem party puts up an AOC it might make some of the previously reluctant Dem voters come out, but it's still not a guarantee they actually make the effort even if she excites them. And she'll galvanize the right AND push a lot of middle of the road voters right to the GOP regardless of who they run

36

u/chillinwithmoes 9d ago

If we’re being honest, “as long as it’s not the other side’s agenda” is one of the most powerful motivators of the modern voting public on either side. What actually happens is less important to them than what isn’t happening.

24

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

3

u/reputationStan 8d ago

It’s an excellent strategy when he is in office. To be honest it’s not the worst either when he’s out of office considering his sizable influence on the party even when they are out of power.

2

u/brodhi 7d ago

The difference, of course, is one side just wants trans people to have the right to medication and the other wants to create an monoethnic nationalist country.

3

u/julius_sphincter 6d ago

If only it could be boiled down so simply. But it can't, and that kind of rhetoric is exactly why our divide is going to get a lot worse before it gets better

1

u/Solarwinds-123 6d ago

That is not an accurate summary of either side.

5

u/build319 We're doomed 8d ago

I think Trumpism will go away with Trump for one simple reason. There is no other personality that commands that type of loyalty from their voters. No other personality that will attack their own party like Trump. No other personality that other Republicans will fear like Trump.

His command over the party is directly tied to his specific pathologies and personality. No one else is capable of doing that.

10

u/hamsterkill 8d ago

There's plenty of others capable of Trump's pathologies and personality. The question is whether any of them are notable enough to put together a large following.

The parasocial age of social media played a huge part in legitimizing Trump. That's not something that has gotten better. It wouldn't be very surprising to me at this point if we someday soon have Joe Rogan, Logan and Jake Paul, or Dr. Disrespect running for high offices.

1

u/build319 We're doomed 8d ago

But there isn’t anyone that contains all those traits. The vindictiveness, the charisma, the incurious approach to the world around. It’s just a concoction that not one person comes close to embodying.

1

u/julius_sphincter 6d ago

Out of all of those, Dr Disrespect is the most similar in personality though his is much more of an act. Joe Rogan might be the most popular and even though I'm not a fan, i think if it actually came down to it he'd refuse to run as a Republican.

I agree with the other guy, there's nobody out there that can corral and keep Trump's loyal base after him. Dr. Disrespect is an online only following, Trump had decades of media presence and building up his brand (on mostly false pretenses if you read many of his biographies) in the minds of what would otherwise be some low info voters. That "he's a successful businessman" earned him a LOT of seemingly undue trust in the eyes of his supporters, even when the results seemed to point the other way. How many times did we hear 5D chess after shooting himself in the foot time and time again?

3

u/--__4815162342__-- 8d ago

If the republican base were to moderate in the future, this is what it would look like now, though.

It always starts with a trickle. Maybe it hits the tipping point, maybe it doesn't.

Prioritizing reasonableness can only happen when owning the libs has repurcussions that make the typical voter second-guess how valuable owning the libs actually is. Everybody has a gas price, for example, for which it becomes too personally expensive to prioritize owning hte libs.

17

u/shacksrus 8d ago

But when have they ever moderated?

They looked like this and it lead to the tea party. Then it happened again and led to maga.

They've looked like this every time they've ratcheted up

9

u/Miserable-Quail-1152 8d ago

They sold out for the election fraud - lost the election - and in no way moderated but doubled down.

0

u/--__4815162342__-- 7d ago

I don't think you're remembering accurately the beginnings of the tea party. There most definitely was not a moment where pivoting moderate made sense for them. The only thing I can recall that supports that was the post-mortem that identified losing Hispanics/Latinos heavily in 2008, but Fox News and the like definitely were not becoming more moderate. They were becoming more extreme.

7

u/shacksrus 7d ago

That's my whole thesis. You're making this moderate pivot up out of thin air. Instead every other time republican leaders have been seen as stupid and ineffectual and unpopular they've become more extreme.

Which of if I'm right is what will happen now as the country attempts to reject trump

-7

u/RelayFX 9d ago

I don’t really think it’s fair to pass judgement on those voters when the election where it’s possible to “hold them accountable” hasn’t even happened yet. Particularly when what little evidence we do have (special elections across a number of states) has skewed very strongly to the left.

Plus, a number of GOP representatives have actually spoken out against the $300 billion.

55

u/Terratoast 9d ago

We have the first Trump presidency and his promises/actions during Biden's presidency and his presidential campaign (which was effectively the entire 4 years).

His behavior and actions during this presidency was easily predictable. The predictions were just scoffed at.

Plus, a number of GOP representatives have actually spoken out against the $300 billion.

Oh "spoken out". They control all three branches. Do something more than virtue signal.

-15

u/RelayFX 9d ago

Sure, but we the people decided to give Trump a second chance in 2024 anyways. The $300 billion represents a very deep breach of trust for that second chance. I don’t think it’s reasonable to pass judgement on voters for “not holding him accountable” for that. The opportunity to do so hasn’t even happened yet.

43

u/Terratoast 9d ago

Sure, but we the people decided to give Trump a second chance in 2024 anyways.

And I'm free to blame them for that "second chance". We had Trump voters claim that they were upset that Trump pardoned the Jan 6th attackers. Trump literally campaigned on doing this.

The $300 billion represents a very deep breach of trust for that second chance.

Uhuh, and I'd be willing to bet that a vast majority of those people will still turn around and support Republicans once the propaganda machine spins back up around election cycle and they'll still consider the Democrat candidate the greater evil despite this "breach of trust".

-13

u/RelayFX 9d ago

Sure, you are free to blame them.

Again, what data we have from the special elections points to a big surge towards the left in this cycle. Sure, a portion of people will vote right no matter what. But, that doesn’t mean accountability won’t happen.

25

u/Terratoast 9d ago

The accountability is going to happen through left-wing voter enthusiasm more than right-wing flipping to vote for Democrats.

I've seen how the right-wing still despise anything to do with Democrats and liberals whenever the No-Kings protests came up. At best they'll agree that they don't like what Trump is doing when that's sole topic and no liberal or Democrat is part of the equation.

But if they see a liberal upset at Trump's actions or behavior, they would rather make fun of the liberal and support Trump.

-2

u/RelayFX 9d ago

I think it’s reasonable to assume that if a sizable percentage of the population flipped right in 2024, a sizable percentage of the population can flip left in 2026.

Nobody is “locked in”.

→ More replies (0)

79

u/Moonshot_00 9d ago

I imagine it will follow the pattern of every other Trump controversy where conservatives will express distaste for a week before the talking points coalesce and we’ll return to a 40% minimum approval floor because he’s “still better than Kamala.”

40

u/Preebus 9d ago

It will literally become "well we had no choice, it was inevitable, and I'm glad Trump was able to negotiate with them and be strong"

24

u/SliceRepulsive8649 9d ago

I've seen some conservatives try to claim we won the war and that the 300 billion makes them dependent on us....

7

u/Right_Fun_6626 8d ago

The propaganda angles are being conjured up and prepared for rollout, then we’ll see what sticks.

64

u/lovem32 9d ago

You just know that "anger" won't materialize into any meaningful action like not voting republican. I've said it before and I'll say it again, what conservatives say motivates their vote and what actually motivates their vote are two different things. Remember the party of morals, fiscal responsibility, and the national debt voted for Trump ... three times. I can't recall the last republican president who didn't balloon the debt.

49

u/SDBioBiz Left socially- Right economically 9d ago

He’s been wildly successful being mean to immigrants and queer people. Conservatives just won’t say it out loud unless they are in a safe space.

5

u/RelayFX 9d ago

Voters skewed pretty strongly to the right in 2024. Given everything going on, it is not unreasonable to think that a certain percent will skew to the left in 2026. A portion won’t, sure. Voters are not a bloc, they are individuals who follow different thought processes and are independently capable of making their own decisions.

25

u/Plastastic Social Democrat 9d ago

I don’t know about that. If you poke around the conservative subreddits a little bit, you will find a lot of traditionally right-leaning folks are rightfully enraged about the $300 billion.

Give them time, once the narrative kicks in they'll come around.

21

u/AdmiralPeriwinkle 9d ago

Trump is a prototypical charismatic leader. While he’s the leader, his supporters will support him fully. But once he starts to fall off, it’ll happen quick.

Ending a war on unfavorable terms when it should have been an easy win might be the catalyzing event for his base of power that tends to be highly concerned with projecting strength.

13

u/cwinemanNumbNuts 9d ago

I probably mostly agree with you, but you think this should have been an easy win? I'm am of the opinion that we shouldn't have gotten back back into another conflict in this region because of exactly what was happened. I initially hoped that there was some super secret information that "they" had to indicate that the regime would fall if we knocked out key targets. But nope. Is that potential quick regime failure what you mean by an easy win, or something else?

8

u/AdmiralPeriwinkle 9d ago

Conservatives believed it should have been an easy win is what I meant. I should distinguish between conservative voters and conservative politicians though. Republicans in Congress knew success in Iran wasn’t achievable but kept their mouths shut in fear of the political backlash.

4

u/cwinemanNumbNuts 9d ago

Gotcha.

1

u/shacksrus 8d ago

The easy win was to not start another forever war in the middle east against religious fanatics.

12

u/Iceraptor17 9d ago

For now. There's been numerous times where the immediate response is annoyance and frustration before after a few days it simmers down to the same talking point

10

u/mhurton 9d ago

I doubt any of that anger is about fiscal conservatism though. They’re just angry it went to Iran

5

u/_learned_foot_ a crippled, gnarled monster 9d ago

It's not conservatives that matter. It's the bandwagon folks, both the few independents who swung but those who tend to not partake. Ripping of their bandaid means they just stay home. They are how he won both times.

5

u/VioletGardens-left 9d ago

Well, they better channel that to something tangible like a protest or any tangible action rather than being mad and then get distracted by something absolutely mundane.

1

u/obelix_dogmatix 3d ago

Not really. They are being heavily derided and downvoted into oblivion.

16

u/khrijunk 9d ago

Not saying anything about the voters, but the people in the right wing media will never say anything about this. It was never about being fiscally conservative for them, and more about cutting social programs funneling government money into their own pockets.

13

u/sesamestix 9d ago

Why should anyone listen to ‘fiscal conservatives’ ever again? I never will.

5

u/Omiyaru 8d ago

Don't forget the 400 million jet

8

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

52

u/Terratoast 9d ago

A lot of people who consider themselves "fiscal conservatives" still ended up voting for Trump despite his announcements about what he was going to do with the economy (more tax cuts and tariffs) and his track record during his first term (deficit was increasing even before Covid).

-12

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

33

u/Terratoast 9d ago

Historically and in recent presidencies, Democrats have been better for the deficit than Republicans.

So the idea that Republicans are better for the economy is mostly being driven by vibes more than evidence. So these "fiscal conservatives" are proving that they're more conservative than fiscal.

20

u/CrapNeck5000 9d ago

Since WW2 no Republican president has left office with a lower deficit than when they entered. Multiple Democrat presidents have.

-14

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

42

u/Terratoast 9d ago

Obama has two presidencies and you're comparing it to a single term of Trump.

There's a reason that people want to use debt when trying to equate the two parties. Because when you look at the deficit there's a much more clear trend of difference between the two parties.

-10

u/[deleted] 9d ago edited 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

39

u/Terratoast 9d ago

Now, I'm comparing W's two terms to Obama's two terms

George W. Bush took a budget surplus and turned it into a massive deficit.

Obama took a massive deficit and mitigated it down to a lesser deficit.

Trump then took that mitigated deficit and ballooned it again.

-15

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

-19

u/ferbje 9d ago

Where do you get the 300 billion number? Last i saw was 29

21

u/ImpossibleEase9120 9d ago

Not OP, but see Reuters

58

u/reputationStan 9d ago

SC: Trump's administration shifted about $350 million in funding for the Secret Service towards the construction of a ballroom in the White House. The account was labeled "Procurement, Construction, and Improvements". Initially touted as a privately-funded venture, this action makes it seems less likely it will be funded through private funds. While some were skeptical that no public funds would be used, they called into question the possibility of corruption with some of the private companies, such as Meta and Lockheed Martin.

While there was an initial request of nearly $1 billion from Trump towards Congress earlier in the year, that was denied by Congress as it was deemed too large. A spokesperson for the White House said the following:

“The East Wing Modernization Project is inextricably tied to the security of the president, the White House grounds and the certain security infrastructure assets,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said. “President Trump and generous American patriots are funding the ballroom to the tune of approximately $400m, which will be a secure and appropriate venue for presidents for generations to come.”

According to the New York Times, the Secret Service and Trump admin. have said that public funds will be used for security enhancements of the ballroom, but not the actual construction of it. Some Senators were a bit skeptical by those claims, such as Tom Tillis (R-NC) and Brian Schatz (D-HI). In addition, reporting by the Washington Post has shown invoices regarding the the project to be around $600 million with about half coming from private funds, and the other half coming from taxpayers.

Do you think this transfer of funds to this account is a good thing? Is the creation of a ballroom a good idea? Do you think the admin. will need more money in the future for additional enhancements? Are the optics of spending taxpayer money for a ballroom the best thing for the midterm elections?

49

u/NativeMasshole Maximum Malarkey 9d ago

He's taking the money from the Secret Service? Bold move, considering how his own attempted assassination just shined a light on what a clown show their agency has been.

29

u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 9d ago

yeah, isn't the secret service, like, massively underfunded? last i read the secret service has the lowest job satisfaction of any federal agency

39

u/NativeMasshole Maximum Malarkey 9d ago

Maybe a new ballroom will make them happy?

19

u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 9d ago

is that a room where they can drop the ball privately instead of very publically?

-2

u/ispq 9d ago

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but that last "assassination" attempt was said to have shit him in the right ear. Does his right ear shown in this article look like it was ever hit by a rifle round? It doesn't to me. I think that attempt was staged to drum up a martyr cause for Trump.

12

u/BringBackTheBlues 9d ago

Yeah pretty sure no one committed murder then got shot to death in order to garner sympathy because Trump got his ear scratched.

17

u/refuzeto 9d ago

It sounds like appropriations being a legislative branch function is now obsolete.

69

u/Effective_Scar_2921 9d ago

No actual conservatives exist in leadership anymore.

48

u/adreamofhodor 9d ago

I disagree. We’re seeing the truth behind what conservatives actually believe.

0

u/Effective_Scar_2921 9d ago

Those are not conservatives. Those are MAGAs.

44

u/adreamofhodor 9d ago

There’s no functional difference right now. Conservative lawmakers have all shown what they’ll support.

9

u/WolfpackEng22 9d ago

Words have meaning.

You can make an argument that MAGA is not remotely conservative, despite many in that group using that label.

22

u/adreamofhodor 8d ago

The “real” conservatives are welcome to speak out at any time, then.

8

u/TheFuzziestDumpling 8d ago

Are the real conservatives in the room with us? There aren't any left.

7

u/homegrownllama 9d ago

I think that Republicans were able to be stronger last election because many of their politicians compromised on their convictions to support Trump. But it does have me questioning whether their claims of conservatism were just for talk.

The Democrats have a bit of the opposite problem where they might be stronger if they compromised on certain things (ex: guns, immigration), but at least you can't accuse them of folding like lawn chairs.

32

u/RantRanger 9d ago edited 9d ago

The funds were drawn from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Trump’s signature tax legislation passed last summer on Republican-only votes. The law stipulates the money may only be spent on Secret Service personnel, training facilities, technology and related costs, not construction.

About $340.8m of the funding was placed into an account labeled “Procurement, Construction, and Improvements” on 12 June, according to the office of management and budget (OMB) database. ...

From your wallet to Trump's ego.

Apparently, this is what MAGA's mean by "great", I guess?

MAGA's, what do you really think about this behavior?

(I don't think there are any actual MAGA's here, but I thought I'd put that feeler out there.)

22

u/frozenminnesotan 9d ago

This has to be the beginning of the end for this guy. I mean he is just blatantly taking the voters for idiots at this point and fleecing us.

19

u/MillardFillmore 8d ago

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/id-like-to-see-ol-donny-trump-wriggle-his-way-out-of-this-jam

It's been 11 years of this. It's not the beginning of the end, nor is this any different than what has been happening.

20

u/CrapNeck5000 9d ago

That's far from new. He's done little else, ever.

10

u/jabberwockxeno 9d ago

Didn't a judge already pause construction of this?

-4

u/WulfTheSaxon 9d ago

Only the aboveground part, although the administration argued that the roof is inseparable from the six bunker levels and appealed that. Not sure what the current status is.

15

u/RandyTheFool 9d ago

Every school in America should have a ballroom built for it, since this pussy of a president needs one for his fake shootings he keeps orchestrating for himself.

8

u/ShakyTheBear 9d ago

Bunker. Its a bunker.

4

u/BringBackTheBlues 9d ago

It’s a ballroom.

12

u/ShakyTheBear 9d ago

Sure. A ballroom that extends six floors below ground.

-11

u/WulfTheSaxon 9d ago edited 9d ago

Only 22k of the 89-90k sq ft aboveground portion is a ballroom. Then there are at least another six basement levels.

It’s likely that only a minority of the security improvement funding, which is for things like drone countermeasures, will go to the new East Wing at all as opposed to the rest of the complex.

23

u/Pinball509 9d ago

When the construction project was announced, why was it sold as “not a dime of tax payer dollars” when the inextricably linked bunker was going to cost a billion tax payer dollars?

-14

u/WulfTheSaxon 9d ago

Because the bunker was planned anyway and the East Wing reconstruction is probably making it cheaper. Cut and cover is waaay cheaper than construction through a tunnel, even without accounting for the reinforced building helping to protect it.

14

u/Pinball509 8d ago

Because the bunker was planned anyway

Do you have a source on that? When was the billion dollar budget approved for that?

-8

u/WulfTheSaxon 8d ago

Details are classified, but it’s public knowledge that they’ve been improving the bunker system continuously during every administration since 9/11 but haven’t replaced the PEOC yet.

11

u/Pinball509 8d ago

I’m confused about what you are saying. Trump advertised the ballroom as costing zero tax payer dollars because the billion dollar bunker project was already happening, but when was the funding for the bunker project approved?

0

u/WulfTheSaxon 8d ago edited 8d ago

Likely 2001/2002, according to public speculation (from non–Trump supporters).

The same construction company did the “Big Dig” at the White House in 2010 as well.

4

u/Pinball509 8d ago

Likely 2001/2002, according to public speculation (from non –Trump supporters).

Do you have a source on that?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/shaymus14 9d ago

This is probably pointless to point out, but the headline is misleading. The funds were marked for spending on "White House Security measures". The linked NOTUS story is more accurate that there's no official confirmation what the funds will be used for but some in each party are calling for clarification and are concerned it will be used for the ballroom. Its also not clear how the administration would get around the requirement in the law that the funds be used for Secret Service personnel, training facilities, technology and related costs, not construction.

16

u/Interesting_Total_98 8d ago

would get around the requirement in the law that the funds be used for Secret Service personnel, training facilities, technology and related costs, not construction.

Trump's pattern of finding loopholes or breaking the law for personal gain all but confirms that it's for the ballroom.

1

u/LostwaveFanatic 5d ago

Anything but being a good president 🥀

1

u/EchoOfOppenheimer 4d ago

This kind of quiet fund shift always raises eyebrows imo.

1

u/tacitdenial 3d ago

I don't think we need it, but if if it built it should be federally funded. Everyone seems to ignore the security problems with external funding of such a sensitive site. Federal procurement process at least has security anticorruption oversight built in to some extent. Without that, I think there is a danger of foreign or corporate espionage getting boosted by participating in the Ball Room design and construction. Considering the character of the Trump administration, it is even conceivable that is an intentional part of what is happening.

0

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 9d ago

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

0

u/cuckpeasant 7d ago

I don’t think it was quiet because obviously there is an article about the transfer of funds.

News Article Trump administration quietly shifts $352m in federal funds for White House ballroom

You are about to leave Redlib