Legality of Trump's $400M in private funding for White House ballroom at issue

[LetMyPeopleVote]

A federal judge weighing whether the project may proceed has focused on whether the administration can use private donations to bypass congressional approval.

Link to tweet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/09/trump-ballroom-judge-ruling

A federal judge is expected to soon rule on whether President Donald Trump’s planned $400 million White House ballroom project can proceed, zeroing in on whether the administration’s plan to rely on private donations allows it to bypass congressional approval.

Trump has argued that the approach spares taxpayers the expense, but the dispute has instead highlighted a lack of transparency over how the project is being financed. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, congressional Democrats and watchdog groups have questioned an arrangement that relies on donations from corporations with business before the federal government, funneled through a nonprofit intermediary that stands to collect millions of dollars in fees, to fund the most significant alteration to the White House in decades.

Leon has said he may rule this month on the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s challenge to the project. As the decision approaches, watchdog groups have scrutinized the administration’s fundraising effort, arguing that it exploits gaps in federal disclosure rules that Congress should tighten......

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) concluded that at least 22 companies involved in the ballroom project should have disclosed their donations in lobbying filings but did not.

“The public deserves real transparency around who is contributing and how much they are giving, but that is not what we are seeing,” Matt Corley, CREW’s chief investigator, wrote in an email.

Those concerns also have been taken up by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), who has pressed the Trust for the National Mall — a nonprofit that is managing donations for the White House ballroom project — to clarify its role and specify the donations it has received. In a letter sent to Warren and shared with The Post, the organization declined to offer details about the gifts, but said that it stands to collect between 2 and 2.5 percent of each donation as part of its management fee. The planned $400 million project would be the largest in the organization’s history.

The trump ballroom deal smells. I am glad that the courts are looking at it

[Karadeniz]

1. It takes a trained legal mind to recognize bribes?

[pat_k]

2. I don't see why there is even a question.

AI (Gemini appears to agree). The White House is covered by the Property Clause of the Constitution. Congressional approval is required. Congressional authority over the disposition has nothing to do with the source of funds.

Demolishing the East Wing without Congressional approval was as much a violation as bombing Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park would be.

Yes, the White House is considered federal property owned by the American people and managed by the National Park Service, bringing it under the jurisdiction of the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2) of the U.S. Constitution. This clause gives Congress authority over federal property, requiring congressional approval for major changes or renovations.

Key details regarding the White House as federal property:

Congressional Control: Major renovations, such as the Truman-era reconstruction, require congressional approval and funding.
Public Property: The White House is considered part of the "Executive Residence," which contains public property, including furniture and items managed by the National Park Service.

Legal Standing: The National Trust for Historic Preservation has previously argued that significant alterations to the White House without proper review violate the Property Clause.

Management: While it is the President's residence, it is officially managed as a unit of the National Park Service.
As such, the President cannot legally treat the White House as private property and is subject to federal laws regarding its preservation and management.

[canetoad]

3. It certainly has the appearance

Of being bought and paid for in the most corrupt sense.

[pat_k]

5. Bombing Old Faithful in Yellowstone without Congressional approval would violate the Property Clause of the Constitution

Demolishing the East Wing without Congressional Approval was as much of a violation.

I don't understand why there is even a question. Where the funds come from is irrelevant to the fact that destroying or disposing of the People's property requires an act of the People's Congress.

And finding that "Well, it's destroyed now so let him build whatever the fuck he wants" would be obscene,

[Sogo]

4. Use of public land for private project????

nt.