5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Latest News
Dems Introduce Bill to 'Stop Apparent Bribery Involving Trump Ballroom Donations'
"Billionaire companies are bankrolling Trump’s ballroom and it stinks of bribery," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Nov 18, 2025
Amid concerns over President Donald Trump's White House ballroom, a pair of Democratic US lawmakers on Tuesday introduced legislation "to root out apparent bribery and corruption" involving the $300 million project.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) introduced the Stop Ballroom Bribery Act, described by Warren's office as "the first piece of legislation addressing the ballroom that would impose donation restrictions."
“Billionaires and giant corporations with business in front of this administration are lining up to dump millions into Trump’s new ballroom—and Trump is showing them where to sign on the dotted line," Warren said in a statement. "Americans shouldn’t have to wonder whether President Trump is building a ballroom to facilitate a pay-to-play scheme for political favors. My new bill will put an end to what looks like bribery in plain sight."
Billionaire companies are bankrolling Trump’s ballroom and it stinks of bribery.That’s why @robertgarcia.house.gov and I introduced a bill to crack down on this potential corruption.
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Warren (@warren.senate.gov) November 18, 2025 at 11:16 AM
Garcia said: "Donald Trump is raising hundreds of millions of dollars to build himself a White House ballroom at a time when millions of American families can barely make ends meet. It's outrageous that the White House won’t reveal who’s bankrolling Trump’s pet project, and that the people’s house could be funded by shady figures, corrupt money, and bad actors."
"This bill will ban contributions from anyone with a conflict of interest, prevent bribery, and ensure we can hold any administration accountable for blatant corruption," he added.
Noting that many of the "wealthy individuals, corporations, and organizations" funding the ballroom "need something from the Trump administration," Warren's office flagged "serious concerns of quid-pro-quo arrangements and possible bribery."
"Ethics experts have argued that the apparent pay-to-play relationship between Trump and business leaders oversteps the norms of presidential behavior and could erode Americans’ trust in government," the senator's office added.
As Warren's office noted:
Key ballroom donors currently have business interests in front of the Trump administration. For example, Google, which recently donated $22 million to settle President Trump’s censorship lawsuit against YouTube, will benefit if Trump’s [Department of Justice] decides not to appeal a recent judicial ruling in a relevant antitrust case. Meanwhile, Union Pacific Railroad is seeking federal approval of a lucrative merger and Palantir is working to get more federal contracts.
The White House has refused to be fully transparent, publishing only a noncomprehensive donor list missing multiple key donors and offering donors anonymity. Donations for projects like the ballroom are often channeled through the National Park Service and philanthropic partners; nonprofits with formal ties to property used by the president and [Vice President JD Vance] raise unique conflict-of-interest risks when fundraising from individuals and corporations with interests in front of the federal government.
The Stop Ballroom Bribery Act would:
- Impose pre-donation restrictions, including banning contributions from entities and individuals that present a conflict of interest, make it clear that donations cannot be conditioned on receipt of benefits from the federal government, require congressional approval for foreign donations, and proscribe the president and other senior officials and their families from taking donations;
- Impose post-donation restrictions, including banning the display of donors’ names and logos, enact a two-year cooling-off period before a donor to a covered project can lobby the federal government, and prohibit conversion of leftover donated funds to anyone’s personal use or to benefit the president and other senior officials and their families;
- Require transparency, including the disclosure of any meetings with senior federal officials or their relatives within a year of the donation, and mandate National Park Service publication of all donations to covered projects and ban anonymous donations; and
- Enable enforcement, judicial review, and the pursuit of civil and criminal penalties for violators.
"President Trump's decision to unilaterally destroy the East Wing of the White House to build a ballroom financed by wealthy individuals and corporations not only ignores our country's laws but raises serious ethical concerns—namely, whether individuals and corporations funded this project in the hopes of buying access and influence," said Debra Perlin, vice president for policy at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which supports the legislation.
Virginia Canter, chief counsel and director for ethics and anticorruption at Democracy Defenders Action—another backer of the bill—said that "over the past year, President Trump has raised millions of dollars for vanity projects at the White House—like paving over the Rose Garden and demolishing the beloved East Wing."
"These funds have come from private donors without meaningful transparency or accountability,” Canter added. “The highest office in the land should never be for sale, nor should it ever appear to be."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump Rebuked by Federal Ruling Against Unlawful Racial Gerrymandering in Texas
“The Trump-Abbott maps are clearly illegal, and I’m glad these judges have blocked them,” said Rep. Greg Casar.
Nov 18, 2025
In a direct rebuke to President Donald Trump's hopes that mid-decade redistricting in key states could help Republicans retain control of Congress in next year's midterm elections, a federal court Tuesday ordered Texas to halt the use of its new congressional maps, redrawn earlier this year as part of a GOP effort to maximize its advantage in the Lone Star State.
The unprecedented mid-decade power grab was expected to net Republicans an extra five seats in the House, which, in tandem with other redistricting efforts in Missouri and North Carolina, may have proven critical in their efforts to blunt a blue wave by Democrats in next year's midterms.
But those efforts ran into an unexpected obstacle when Tuesday's 2-1 ruling by a panel of three federal judges in Texas determined the maps were "racially gerrymandered," disempowering nonwhite voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). With a preliminary injunction, the court ordered the state to instead rely on the boundaries it drew in 2021.
In the majority opinion, District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote that while "politics played a role" in Trump's request for Texas to redraw its maps, the White House explicitly "reframed its request as a demand to redistrict congressional seats based on their racial makeup."
Specifically, Brown's decision cited a claim made in a letter to Texas officials from Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, that the existence of four "coalition districts," where no racial group had a 50% majority, in the 2021 map, was "unconstitutional." The DOJ threatened legal action against Texas if it did not immediately move to redraw these districts, which it promptly did at the direction of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
This is despite the fact that, as Brown points out, "attorneys employed by the Texas Attorney General—who professes to be a political ally of the Trump Administration—describe the DOJ letter as 'legally unsound,' 'baseless,' 'erroneous,' 'ham-fisted,' and 'a mess.'"
"The governor explicitly directed the legislature to draw a new US House map to resolve DOJ’s concerns," Brown wrote. "In other words, the governor explicitly directed the legislature to redistrict based on race. In press appearances, the governor plainly and expressly disavowed any partisan objective and instead repeatedly stated that his goal was to eliminate coalition districts and create new majority-Hispanic districts."
"The legislature adopted those racial objectives," he continued. "The redistricting bill’s sponsors made numerous statements suggesting that they had intentionally manipulated the districts’ lines to create more majority-Hispanic and majority-Black districts. The bill’s sponsors’ statements suggest they adopted those changes because such a map would be an easier sell than a purely partisan one."
Republicans will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court. But as the Texas Tribune points out, "time is short," as "candidates only have until December 8 to file for the upcoming election," which means that the district lines must be determined before then.
Chad Dunn, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said: "It seems they’d have a limited chance of success at the Supreme Court because the evidence is so overwhelming. Everyone involved said they were drawing the lines on the basis of race. I don’t see how the Supreme Court sets that aside.”
The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority has signaled that it intends to strike down Section 2 of the VRA entirely. But that case is currently scheduled for early next year and could not be brought onto the shadow docket in time to override the ruling blocking the Texas map for 2026.
While it could have major implications for future elections, likely allowing the GOP to net over a dozen additional seats, in the near term, Trump's gambit for aggressive racial gerrymandering may blow up in his and his party's face---at least temporarily.
Texas' maps kicked off a retaliatory gerrymandering push by Democrats to redraw maps to their advantage in blue states. That effort culminated in California voters' overwhelming passage earlier this month of Proposition 50, which overrode the state's independent redistricting commission and allowed the state legislature to draw maps that handed Democrats an additional five seats. Similar efforts may soon be underway in New York and Virginia.
With the cushion provided by Texas suddenly yanked away, Democrats now appear to be the clear winners of the gerrymandering war if things stand as they are. Instead of gaining the GOP five extra seats, Trump's gambit could end up costing it five.
"Today’s ruling is a rebuke of Texas Republicans who caved to Donald Trump and trampled the voting rights of their constituents," said Adrian Shelley, the Texas director of Public Citizen. "Gov. Abbott and his allies in the Legislature have forgotten their independent streak as Texans. Perhaps they can find the courage that Republicans in a few other states have to tell the president no.”
Meanwhile, Texas Democrats previously at risk of being gerrymandered out of their seats, rejoiced in the wake of Tuesday's ruling.
This includes Austin Reps. Greg Casar and Lloyd Doggett, who, in anticipation of seeing their districts smushed into one, have spent the past several months engaged in a sort of shadow primary, which resulted in Doggett saying he'd retire if the maps were upheld. If Tuesday's ruling holds, both of their districts would remain intact.
"The Trump Abbott maps are clearly illegal, and I’m glad these judges have blocked them," Casar said after Tuesday's ruling. "If this decision stands, I look forward to running for reelection in my current district."
While he celebrated the ruling, he said, "no matter what, we must fight to pass a federal ban on gerrymandering once and for all."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump Threatens ABC’s Broadcast License Again After Reporter Questions Saudi Crown Prince About Khashoggi Murder
Trump also contradicted a US intelligence assessment that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had ordered the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Nov 18, 2025
President Donald Trump angrily snapped at ABC News reporter Mary Bruce while taking questions alongside Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the White House on Tuesday.
The testy exchange began when Bruce tried to ask the crown prince about a US intelligence assessment concluding that he was responsible for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"Who are you with?" Trump demanded to know as Bruce attempted to ask her questions.
"I'm with ABC News, sir," she replied.
"Fake news," Trump said. "ABC, fake news, one of the worst in the business."
Shortly after this, Trump described the slain Khashoggi as "somebody that was extremely controversial."
"A lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about," Trump said, referring to Khashoggi. "Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen. But [the crown prince] knew nothing about it. You don't have to embarrass our guest."
In fact, a US intelligence report that was declassified in 2021 concluded that the crown prince personally approved of a plan carried out by Saudi forces to murder Khashoggi after he entered a Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey in 2018.
Shortly after this, Bruce tried to ask the president a question about FBI files related to the late sex offender and longtime Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein, and he again hit her with personal insults.
"It's not the question I mind, it's your attitude," he said. "You're a terrible person and a terrible reporter."
He then threatened to take ABC News completely off the air.
"I think the [broadcast] license should be taken away from ABC because your news is so fake, and it's so wrong," he said. "And we have a great commissioner... who should look at that."
Trump's mention of the "commissioner" was presumably a reference to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, who earlier this year threatened to pull ABC's broadcast license unless it fired late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, a frequent critic of the president.
Kimmel's show was suspended shortly after Carr made this statement, although he was reinstated days later amid public outcry about government censorship.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular