Lawmakers question funding and legality of Trump ballroom project

[0:06] Okay, so we're following your curiosity here because you guys can't stop asking questions about the White House ballroom. [0:12] It's something that President Trump's been talking about a lot lately. [0:16] So we're following all of your clicks, and it looks like you guys want to know more about how Senate Republicans are getting involved [0:22] and what to know about how this might play out on the legal front. [0:25] So let's break it down. We've got our Jay O'Brien up first. [0:28] Also here is James Sample. Thank you both for being here right now. [0:31] So let's start with the Senate Republicans trying to secure a billion dollars in funding [0:36] for what they're calling security-related aspects of the ballroom project. [0:40] Jay O'Brien covers all things Capitol Hill for us. He's joining us now from our D.C. Bureau. [0:45] Jay, so let's start with this. What do lawmakers say the billion dollars are actually for? [0:50] Gio, my friend, hello to you. [0:51] So this is a billion dollars that was tucked inside a broader $70 billion or so bill [0:57] to fund ICE and Customs and Border Protection, [0:59] because remember, those agencies were left out of a bipartisan deal recently [1:03] to fund the Department of Homeland Security. [1:05] So this bill was to tackle money for them, but slipped inside was that $1 billion [1:09] for security enhancements and security features tied to President Trump's new ballroom [1:15] that's taking the place of what was once the White House's East Wing. [1:19] Now, people who wrote the legislation say that this money cannot be used for anything other than security, [1:24] and that's true. It's in the text of the legislation. [1:27] It can't be used for things like general construction. [1:30] But what constitutes a security expense right now, that's somewhat unclear, Gio. [1:34] And Jay, just earlier today, the president defended the cost increase for the ballroom. [1:39] So why did that price tag jump from $200 million to $400 million? [1:43] The president said in a Truth Social post, it's because in large part, [1:48] the size of the ballroom has increased. [1:51] But it's also worth pointing out, in that same post, the president reiterated an argument [1:55] he's been making since the White House Correspondents' Dinner shooting, [1:59] saying that this ballroom is crucial to security for himself and future presidents. [2:04] And I make that point to say, remember, this legislation says that this $1 billion [2:09] that Republicans are pushing for, and it hasn't become law yet, [2:13] has to be used for security reasons. [2:15] Well, the president argues the entire ballroom is a security purpose. [2:20] So it's still very much unclear how all of this funding ultimately is going to play out. [2:25] Well, and that's actually what I was going to ask you about, [2:27] because there's a ton of questions about this right now. [2:29] Who's paying for it top to bottom? [2:31] Right now, the ballroom itself is being funded through donors [2:36] who've raised billions upon billions of dollars. [2:39] And the White House has insisted this ballroom is being funded by private donors, [2:43] the construction of it. [2:45] But this billion dollars is for, again, security features in and around it. [2:50] So court filings have shown that they're looking at missile-resistant columns, [2:54] drone-proof ceilings, blast-proof glass. [2:57] In theory, if this $1 billion makes it to the House and the Senate, [3:01] it could be used for that. [3:02] Also, the Secret Service has discussed in court filings [3:05] that there's going to be an underground security structure. [3:08] The president has also said that's going to be used by the military. [3:12] Exactly what it is is unclear, [3:14] but the East Room has always been home in the past to a presidential bunker. [3:18] So all of that to say this $1 billion would likely, [3:22] at least by the letter of this law, be used for those security features. [3:25] The ballroom itself, the columns, the tables, the chairs, etc., [3:28] the White House says are going to be paid through donor money. [3:30] Jay, do we know who the donors are? [3:32] Right now, a lot of big blue-chip companies, a lot of big tech. [3:36] NVIDIA's CEO, for example, has made it clear that he and his company donated to this ballroom, [3:41] and he said he's proud to do it. [3:42] He said it would be a monument to this country, to future presidents, etc., etc. [3:46] Other big tech companies, too, defense contractors as well. [3:49] A lot of these companies, Gio, worth pointing out, [3:52] have business before the federal government. [3:54] All right, Jay, I'm sure you will get right back to Capitol Hill. [3:57] You got those sneakers on ready to go. [3:59] I've seen you running through those holes. [4:00] Get back to it. [4:01] Thank you, my friend. [4:02] Appreciate it. [4:03] All right, let's kick it over now to our legal contributor, James Sample. [4:05] Now, he's going to break down the challenges that ballroom project is actually facing right now. [4:10] James, good to see you. [4:11] So, this construction had been blocked repeatedly by courts. [4:14] The big question, why? [4:15] It's great to be with you, Gio. [4:19] And the answer to the question actually ties into this new funding provision, [4:24] which is to say that the reason that the courts have blocked the ballroom project is that the president just did it on his own [4:31] and didn't go through Congress, i.e., did not go through the legislative process that is required, [4:36] both for the physical structure and changes to the physical structure and for the funding purposes. [4:42] And so, Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, had blocked this, a temporary injunction, [4:49] had blocked the ballroom project from going forward. [4:51] The irony here and the kind of nexus between the funding and the legal aspect is that the new billion-dollar provision [4:58] that has been sort of tucked in this reconciliation bill, if, in fact, that provision that Jay was discussing with you just a second ago [5:05] does become law, that may actually solve the legal problem because then it would be congressionally authorized. [5:13] The irony, of course, is that while it might solve the legal problem, Gio, [5:16] there are a lot of taxpayers who aren't so keen on this particular project, much less with a billion-dollar price tag [5:22] when they've been told by the president repeatedly that it would be free to taxpayers. [5:26] Well, James, we're also hearing a lot of talk about national security, of course, [5:29] and how this ballroom could be an exception to that. But what does the Constitution say? [5:35] The Constitution doesn't have an exception that says that if you claim it's for security purposes or national security purposes, [5:41] you can bypass the bipartisan legislation plus presentment, i.e. bipartisan passage in the Congress, [5:49] both houses of Congress, presentment for signature to the president. [5:52] That's the lawmaking function that we have going back to Sesame Street-level civics. [5:56] There's not a national security exception for that. [6:00] And therefore, on the legal front, this really does need to go through Congress. [6:05] And what's fascinating here is that the story keeps changing. [6:09] And even though this is now a billion dollars for security purposes, [6:13] that figure is more than double the initial estimates of the cost. [6:17] And even if it is donors as opposed to taxpayers who end up paying for the ballroom, [6:22] nothing is truly free in Washington. Those donors expect a return on investment. [6:27] Well, and given all of these legal challenges, what do we know about a timeline right now? [6:31] I mean, would Trump still be in office by the time they get going on this? [6:35] I suspect that he is certainly hoping that this will get going very quickly. [6:40] I mean, the administration filed a brief last week seeking to appeal the injunction. [6:45] It was a fascinating legal brief in the sense that it was written like a truth social post, [6:50] all caps, language, references to Trump derangement syndrome, [6:54] references to his acumen as a real estate developer and so forth. [6:58] He wants to get this off the ground. [6:59] He sees this as one of his signature projects. [7:02] Whether or not the American people see it that way, we'll have to wait and see. [7:06] Yeah, we will wait and see. [7:07] All right, James Sample, thank you so much for all of your insight. [7:09] We appreciate it.