

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Under Donald Trump, there’s a two-tiered justice system," said one watchdog leader. "Big Tech plays by a different set of rules because they bought their way in."
A newly revealed list of companies and billionaire CEOs who donated millions of dollars to President Donald Trump's ballroom construction project shows that Big Tech, according to one government watchdog, "bankrolled it fully expecting a return on their investment."
The list, first reported by The Washington Post, doesn't just show the $25 million donations from tech giant Apple, the pro-Israel Adelson Family Foundation, and microchip firm Nvidia—the latter of which requested anonymity.
It also reveals previously undisclosed donors who have benefited from a presidential pardon as well as government contracts and at least one closed federal investigation.
The 57 donors whose names were published by the Post had committed to contributing at least $100,000 to the ballroom construction project, which is proceeding for now following a Supreme Court ruling in August.
The list shows a total of $333 million contributed from private donors, but does not include Trump's name, though the president has said the demolition of the White House's East Wing and the construction of the ballroom would be "paid for a hundred percent by me and some friends of mine."
It also falls short of the $600 million projected price tag; according to the Post, taxpayer funds have been used to partially fund the project, along with donations from companies with business before the government.
Nvidia's $25 million donation came three months after the company reached a deal with the Trump administration to sell advanced microchips to China.
A $25 million donation from Charles Ergen, co-founder and chairman of the telecommunications company Dish Network, came shortly after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) dropped an investigation into the failure of EchoStar, which owns Dish Network, to upgrade its cellphone network.
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr had threatened last May to revoke government licenses from EchoStar, and a month later, Ergen met with Carr and Trump in a closed-door meeting where his political donations were discussed, Bloomberg reported.
Ergen then negotiated a deal to sell some of the licenses to AT&T. Carr dropped the investigation the following month, and months later, with the sale pending, the executive donated $12.5 million to Trump's ballroom construction. A second $12.5 million contribution came soon after, according to the list published by the Post.
“Big Tech giants didn’t just chip in for Trump’s ballroom," said Sacha Haworth of the Tech Oversight Project, a watchdog group. "The same companies funding Trump’s vanity project lined up for tax breaks, chip deals, federal contracts, and a blind eye to lawbreaking. Under Donald Trump, there’s a two-tiered justice system. Big Tech plays by a different set of rules because they bought their way in."
The Post also detailed a $2.5 million contribution from Isabela Herrera, the daughter of international banker Julio Herrera Velutini, whom the US Department of Justice indicted on bribery charges in 2022.
Herrera Velutini's charges were reduced to a misdemeanor months after his daughter donated millions of dollars to Trump's MAGA Inc. political action committee, and a month later, she committed to a $2.5 million donation for the ballroom. Soon after, Herrera Velutini was pardoned.
The transactions detailed by the Post amount to "blatant corruption," said progressive news outlet The Tennessee Holler.
Companies with massive stakes in decisions before President Trump and his administration gave many millions to the White House ballroom project, which the President has made clear is important to him. So are you confident he'll make those decisions based only on what's good for the American people?
[image or embed]
— Noah Bookbinder (@noahbookbinder.bsky.social) October 15, 2026 at 10:43 AM
Cryptocurrency investors Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss donated more than $5 million in bitcoin—a portion of the more than $18 million the industry contributed to the ballroom. Trump has pushed for loose regulations for the industry.
Other top donors include Google, Lockheed Martin, Amazon, and Palantir.
Government watchdog Public Citizen said a new tax filing from the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit charity that manages the donations for the ballroom, shows that $169.7 million came from just 10 big donors.
“One year after the people’s house was abruptly bulldozed for a gold-plated ballroom that most Americans will never be allowed inside, we are uncovering who paid the most to fund it," said Jon Golinger, democracy advocate for Public Citizen. "The question these ballroom megadonors all now need to answer is—why?”
Haworth said that "when Democrats take back gavels in January, they need to investigate Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, OpenAI, and others for potentially breaking the law to buy get-out-of-jail-free passes and sweetheart deals in exchange for their donation."
By abruptly closing public consultation on the massive project, the administration “decided the public’s role is meaningless, unimportant, and of no value whatsoever," said critics.
A historical preservation group said it was "gobsmacked" on Monday after the Trump administration said it was closing down its consultation with experts about President Donald Trump's plan for a triumphal arch in Washington, DC, because addressing their concerns and those from the general public would require them to deviate from the president's vision for the project.
On Thursday, Travis Voyles, the Trump-appointed vice chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), sent a letter informing civil society and historic preservation groups that it was ending the federal review of how the 250-foot-tall arch would harm nearby historical sites.
That review is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which mandates that federal agencies, including the National Park Service (NPS), consider how a project will affect historic properties and seek ways to "avoid, minimize, or mitigate” the harms of a planned project.
The federal regulations governing the Section 106 process explicitly state that "the views of the public are essential to informed federal decisionmaking,” and require agencies to “seek and consider” those views.
The administration, via the NPS, has acknowledged that the Triumphal Arch would have "adverse effects" on historical sites, disrupting views of Arlington National Cemetery, the Lincoln Memorial, and dozens of others. Meanwhile, the proposal has received over 107,000 public comments, most of which are negative, according to a sample from the DC Preservation Office.
But rather than taking the public concern as a reason to reevaluate or scale back the project, Voyles explained that the ACHP was choosing to end public consultation altogether because taking it into account would require changing the “fundamental nature” of the project in a way that the administration would never accept.
"It is clear that the proposed undertaking and its potential effects on historic properties have raised significant public interest, and the NPS stated in its September 22, 2026 correspondence that it believes additional consultation on the existing proposal is unlikely to result in agreement... to resolve adverse effects," he wrote.
"Further, the NPS stated that implementation of alternatives to avoid or minimize the adverse effects would alter the fundamental nature of the proposed undertaking and fail to achieve its goals," he continued, explaining that "in recognition of the public’s significant concerns," they were "hereby terminating" consultation.
Voyles said the ACHP would create its own recommendations and deliver them by October 7 to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose office is overseeing the project. Burgum is legally required to consider and formally respond to those recommendations, but unlike a legally binding memorandum of agreement, he does not have to follow them.
The ACHP has set a deadline for public comments for Tuesday night at 11:59 pm and said it planned another meeting with consulting parties.
One of the outside groups involved in the consultation process was The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF), a national historic-landscape preservation nonprofit, whose founder and CEO, Charles Birnbaum, worked at the NPS for 15 years and was the principal author of the federal guidelines for cultural landscapes.
Section 106 requires consultation to begin “at the early stages of project planning.” But TCLF says the review began only after the Commission of Fine Arts had approved the arch’s design.
Meanwhile, the TCLF has said that it and other relevant preservation groups were invited to only a single meeting on September 9, just weeks before public consultation was terminated. They said this indicated that any real alternative proposals had essentially been taken off the table.
On Monday, Scott MacFarlane of MeidasTouch News published a letter from the TCLF savaging the administration's "extraordinary" reasoning for canceling the public consultation.
"Mr. Voyles has written a singularly audacious letter," it said. "Rather than address the 'public's significant concerns regarding the adverse effects' on one of the nation's most revered and symbolically important cultural landscapes through an authentic public engagement process that doesn't foreclose avoidance as a precondition, the administration, through its proxy, the ACHP, has decided the public's role is meaningless, unimportant, and of no value whatsoever."
The question of historical preservation is one of numerous legal issues facing Trump's effort to build the arch, which is estimated to cost at least $100 million, though the administration has not published an official price tag.
Although it will be partially funded by taxpayers, Congress has not yet authorized the project, leading to a federal lawsuit seeking to block construction.
Outcry over the public funding for the project led Trump last week to propose using the monument as a "military complex" that would house drones, ammunition, and snipers. He has similarly attempted to justify his taxpayer-funded White House ballroom project by giving it a dual national security purpose.
"Trump's abuse of taxpayer dollars is especially egregious at a time when families are grappling with high costs for rent, groceries, childcare, and other necessities," said US Sen. Maggie Hassan.
Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee on Wednesday released a report calculating that taxpayer funding for President Donald Trump's vanity projects has soared to more than $1.8 billion.
Renovations made to the White House—including the president's luxury ballroom—are the biggest projected expenses, as the analysis cites reporting from The Washington Post last month to estimate that they will cost $927 million.
After the White House renovations, the second-most expensive Trump vanity project highlighted in the report is the estimated $400 million that will be required to provide security upgrades to the luxury jet the president received as a gift from the Qatari government.
The report finds that taxpayers will also be on the hook for $257 in renovations to the the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, which the president has threatened to tear down unless he is allowed to slap his name on the side of the building.
The president's "Triumphal Arch" monument is another big-ticket item, as the report calculates it will cost $100 million to construct. Trump's infamously botched attempt to renovate the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, meanwhile, is set to cost taxpayers $16 million.
The Democrats on the JEC also released a Trump Vanity Calculator, an online tool that shows the opportunity costs of the president's assorted projects.
Among other things, the calculator shows that the $1.8 billion spent on the projects would be enough to pay for more than 607 million school lunches, or 117,000 additional Head Start slots, or 246,000 Pell Grants.
Redirecting the spending on the Trump projects would also be enough to restore funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits—which were cut as part of the Republican Party's 2025 budget law—for over 429,000 families.
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), ranking member of the JEC, said the report shows that Trump "has wasted taxpayer dollars on projects that benefit himself instead of the American people."
“Trump’s abuse of taxpayer dollars is especially egregious at a time when families are grappling with high costs for rent, groceries, childcare, and other necessities," Hassan said. "President Trump admits that he doesn’t think about the financial situation of Americans, and the American people can see that; instead, he thinks about how he can use their money to build gold-plated monuments to himself."
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised to cut Americans' energy costs in half while keeping the country out of foreign wars.
In February, Trump launched an illegal war against Iran without any congressional authorization that has sent energy prices skyrocketing, including record-high prices for diesel fuel.
Through it all, Trump has continued touting his vanity projects, including the aforementioned ballroom and arch, even as polls show that the high cost of living is American voters' biggest concern.
With the midterm elections just six weeks away, a survey released by CNN on Wednesday shows that just 24% of Americans say that Trump has the right priorities as president, while two-thirds say he has worsened economic conditions in the country.
"The White House belongs to the people, but Trump consistently acts like it belongs to him alone," said one watchdog, calling out the court's majority for allowing construction on "this illegal project."
US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts recently let construction on President Donald Trump's White House ballroom continue in a temporary solo decision, but on Monday he sided with the three liberals against the five right-wingers who allowed the project to proceed during a legal battle.
The Trump administration sought intervention from the nation's top court after the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a district judge's ruling that halted above-ground construction but permitted work on an underground bunker and other "national security facilities." Roberts then paused the appellate decision but also sought a review from all justices.
The five justices behind the majority's Monday decision, including Trump's three appointees, concluded the administration "is likely to prevail" in showing that the National Trust for Historic Preservation—which is challenging parts of the widely contested project that's already destroyed the East Wing of the White House—lacks standing.
"This court has not found standing in circumstances like these before. To the contrary, we have repeatedly held that mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury under Article III," the majority wrote, referring to the portion of the US Constitution that addresses the judicial system.
"The government has also established that it will likely suffer irreparable harm from the district court's injunction and that the balance of the equities tips in its favor," the majority added in its unsigned order, which signaled that the merits of the case should continue to be examined by lower courts.
Meanwhile, writing for himself and the liberal justices, Roberts said that the construction "is likely unlawful," given that Congress has not passed legislation authorizing the project, and pointed to the trust's executive committee member Alison K. Hoagland.
"As a Capitol Hill resident, Hoagland regularly visits the White House to take in the historic building's beauty and to appreciate its symbolism. By overshadowing the traditional White House, Hoagland explains, the new ballroom will detract from the building's
message of republican simplicity and thereby worsen her viewing experience," he wrote. "Hoagland's injury suffices for standing."
The high court's majority "misconceives the plaintiff's injury, allowing the executive's likely infringement of the legislature's power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue," Roberts added. "Today's decision is no victory for the separation of powers."
The president cheered the majority's decision, writing on his Truth Social platform:
I am pleased to report that the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat. We are living in the Golden Age of America, and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C. When completed in the Summer of 2028, the magnificent Ballroom and Military Complex will be something that the entire Country is very proud of. The Project, despite the baseless lawsuit brought by the so-called National Trust for Historic Preservation of the United States, which is not in any way affiliated with the United States Government, is under budget and ahead of schedule. The Ballroom is totally funded by Great Patriots and Corporations and, therefore, is a Gift — At no cost to the American Taxpayer.
Critics continued to condemn the project after the decision, with US Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) stressing on Bluesky that "the president's vanity project does nothing to benefit anyone but Donald J. Trump himself."
"Not a penny to lower your costs," the senator reminded Americans. "This has been a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars from the start."
Jon Golinger, democracy advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "in light of this disappointing decision by the court, the next Congress must make investigating Trump's illegal ballroom project and everyone involved with funding and facilitating it a top priority."
Both chambers of Congress are narrowly controlled by Trump's Republican Party, and some GOP lawmakers even tried to boost the project. However, Democrats are aiming to reclaim majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives in the November midterm elections—and if they succeed, they could probe the ballroom and various other concerns from his second presidency.
"Trump suffers from a crippling case of 'palace-envy' and who knows what national treasure he'll demolish next to try to build himself another gold-plated monument," warned Golinger. "For now, we will keep digging into and exposing Trump's ballroom funding schemes, through which he raked in millions from corporations with billions in government contracts and anonymous donors with unknown agendas."
"We call upon the court to hold President Trump accountable and affirm a fundamental principle on which this country was founded: No one, not even a president, is above the law," responded one watchdog leader.
US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday allowed construction on President Donald Trump's White House ballroom project to continue while a legal battle plays out.
The Trump administration filed an appeal seeking an emergency intervention from the high court last week, after the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a district judge's ruling, halting above-ground construction while allowing work on an underground bunker and other "national security facilities."
Roberts issued a one-page order announcing the administrative stay, which blocks the appellate court's preliminary injunction, pending further consideration by him and the other justices.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is challenging the contentious project, which is slated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars and has already resulted in workers demolishing the East Wing of the White House.
After Roberts' ruling, a spokesperson for the organization told Courthouse News, "To be clear, this is not a final decision on the merits of the government's stay application, and we await further action."
National Trust's president and CEO, Brent Leggs, said earlier this week that "the executive branch lacks unilateral authority to destroy or transform the White House, and cannot use national security as a justification for ignoring the Constitution."
Various groups and federal lawmakers have echoed the organization's argument that under the US Constitution, "Congress, not the executive, holds the nation's purse strings," and Trump's "plan to fund the ballroom with private donations cannot stand," as the Campaign Legal Center and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) wrote in a Tuesday amicus brief.
Responding to Roberts' decision, Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "the ballroom is a microcosm of a hundred different issues with the Trump administration. This president has usurped the powers reserved for Congress by the Constitution and flouted the law at every turn."
"The White House belongs to the people, not to the president himself," she stressed. "We call upon the court to hold President Trump accountable and affirm a fundamental principle on which this country was founded: No one, not even a president, is above the law."
Meanwhile, her colleague Jon Golinger, a democracy advocate at Public Citizen, emphasized that "everything Trump demolishes can be rebuilt. Every place he breaks can be fixed. Every space he pollutes can be fumigated."
Golinger vowed that "we will keep investigating and exposing Trump's shady ballroom funding schemes to rake in millions from corporations with billions in government contracts and anonymous donors with hidden agendas."
"The Constitution's system of checks and balances ensures that no individual or branch of government holds absolute power," said one legal expert. "The president is ignoring this design."
Just days after President Donald Trump's administration asked the right-wing US Supreme Court to allow construction of a new White House ballroom to continue while a legal challenge plays out, federal lawmakers and advocacy groups on Tuesday urged the justices to block any more work on the project absent congressional approval.
"The Constitution's system of checks and balances ensures that no individual or branch of government holds absolute power," said Trevor Potter, president of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
"The president is ignoring this design by unilaterally demolishing the East Wing of the White House and trying to construct a massive ballroom with private funds, raising the risk of corruption that constitutional checks are supposed to prevent," he continued.
Potter stressed that "Congress, not the president, is empowered to raise and spend taxpayer dollars—and it has not authorized the ballroom. The administration's reliance on private donor funding for the ballroom project violates a core principle of separation of powers embedded in our Constitution."
CREW president Donald Sherman highlighted that "President Trump has spent his second term creating pay-to-play opportunities for corporations to curry favor and advance his personal priorities, without regard for the Constitution or the American people's best interests."
Trump kicked off his second term with an inauguration dubbed "a coronation of our country’s descent into oligarchy" because of the billionaires who got prime seating at the event. Since then, according to recent disclosures, he's pocketed at least $2.2 billion, over half of it from his family’s crypto scheming.
Amid alarm over Trump's enrichment of himself and his allies—and his plummeting approval rating—Sherman said that "the Supreme Court should deny the request for a stay and ensure that this administration isn't allowed to run roughshod over the separation of powers and dodge congressional approval for spending taxpayer dollars."
Sherman and Potter's groups were far from alone in filing a brief with that demand; dozens of Democrats who serve as ranking members of various committees across both chambers of Congress as well as the minority leader, whip, and caucus chair in the House of Representatives submitted a similar filing to the nation's top court.
The Democrats "understand that the Constitution empowers Congress—not the President—to control federal property, including
determining whether (and how) parts of the White House should be demolished or constructed," their lawyers wrote, noting that they previously sent a brief to US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which earlier this month upheld a district judge's ruling that halted most construction.
The filing argues that the injunction should remain in place, and "the construction the president seeks should not proceed until Congress authorizes that construction and appropriates the funds for it," an event that is unlikely during this session, even with the GOP's narrow control of both chambers.
Welcoming the lawmakers' brief, Jon Golinger, democracy advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen, asked, "If President Trump is so proud of his Golden Ballroom, why is he so afraid to ask Congress to approve it?"
"A key reason the Constitution requires Congress to authorize the White House ballroom project is to ensure transparency and oversight of the '$335 million of an expected $400 million' that the White House says it's raised from donors, including corporations who have been awarded billions in government contracts and anonymous donors with secret agendas," Golinger said.
"We agree that by law Congress needs to authorize it and urge the court to reject the White House's desperate 'Hail Mary' pass," he added. "The Supreme Court is expected to decide by this Friday whether to intervene in the ballroom case or to allow the Court of Appeals injunction to take effect, which would block further ballroom construction unless and until Congress authorizes it."
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is behind the legal challenge to the project, also sent its arguments against Trump's ballroom on Tuesday. The group's president and CEO, Brent Leggs, noted that "last week, the administration made two audacious claims in asking the US Supreme Court to greenlight continued aboveground construction of the White House ballroom."
"First, that no court in the land has the authority to stop them," he explained. "And second, that because they are using the same indestructible concrete used in nuclear power plants, it would be impossible to remove the ballroom even if ordered to do so. They are working around the clock in an attempt to outrace judicial review."
Leggs said that in its filing, his group "reiterated that the administration has no unilateral legal authority—constitutional, statutory, or otherwise—to build a ballroom on the site of the now-demolished East Wing, unless and until Congress expressly approves. Each court that has reviewed this case has agreed with the National Trust. We hope the Supreme Court will uphold the rule of law by stopping this illegal project."
"Our position was supported by several amicus briefs, including one from the Society for the Rule of Law and former Republican White House lawyers," he added. "These briefs highlight the point the National Trust has made for months: The executive branch lacks unilateral authority to destroy or transform the White House, and cannot use national security as a justification for ignoring the Constitution."
"This is money they're taking out of your healthcare, your jobs, and your education," the California Democrat noted, calling on Republicans in Congress "to do their jobs."
Several Democrats in Congress on Wednesday blasted US President Donald Trump's plans to spend over $900 million—mostly taxpayer dollars—on construction projects on White House grounds, the details of which were first reported by The Washington Post.
"The Post previously reported that the projected cost of the East Wing construction alone was $600 million, with half coming from taxpayers," the newspaper detailed. Journalists reviewed confidential contracts and related planning documents that also "include the costs of upgrades to nearby Lafayette Square, construction of a helipad, a new visitor screening center, and other previously reported projects that would drive the total cost of work on the grounds to at least $927 million."
While the Post highlighted how the administration has "sidestepped Congress and shielded visibility into what would become the most expensive overhaul" of the property in decades, the White House declined to answer the newspaper's questions and claimed that the money is being spent in a "manner consistent with" congressional intent.
"President Trump continues to implement long-overdue and necessary renovations to beautify the People's House as we celebrate our great Nation’s 250th anniversary of independence," said White House spokesperson Davis Ingle. "Thanks to the Builder-in-Chief, the White House will be properly glorified and remain in excellent condition for generations to come."
The report came amid a court battle over Trump's proposed ballroom—for which he's already demolished the East Wing—and just days after journalist Scott MacFarlane revealed that, according to internal documents from the National Park Service, massive sums of money have been diverted to fund assorted projects commissioned by the president.
Responding to the Post's article on Bluesky, US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a potential 2028 presidential candidate, said that "the price of Trump's ballroom keeps going up, and he has lied to Americans about how much taxpayers will pay for it. This is money they're taking out of your healthcare, your jobs, and your education. I am calling on Republicans to do their jobs and block this wasteful spending."
Both chambers of Congress are narrowly controlled by Republicans, but that could change after the November midterm elections. Other lawmakers joined Khanna in calling out Trump's priorities, as Americans struggle with the high cost of necessities, from gasoline and groceries to healthcare and housing.
"The same president who says there's no money for daycare or healthcare wants to hand you a nearly $1 billion tab for his personal playground," stressed Congressman Richard Neal (D-Mass.). "There's a golden age happening alright, but only for residents at the White House."
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said that "when it comes to Trump, everything must be bigger, shinier, and all about him—including the White House. He's turning a place that belongs to the American people into his very own DC Mar-a-Lago on the taxpayers' dime. And the price tag keeps going up. It’s now at least $900 million. This is crazy corruption and a massive grift on Americans."
As inflation continues to spiral out of control and gas prices remain well above $4, this is how Donald Trump is spending your taxpayer dollars. $900 million for a gilded ballroom at the White House. $0 to lower your costs. The Trump White House in a nutshell.
[image or embed]
— Chuck Schumer (@schumer.senate.gov) August 12, 2026 at 10:14 AM
The Post reporting coincided with the US Bureau of Labor Statistics announcing the latest inflation figures, which underscored the financial strain that American consumers are enduring under Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress. Democrats who shared the article on social media emphasized the current affordability crisis.
"Trump secretly transferred $500 million taxpayer dollars into shadowy accounts to fund his White House construction spree. He even redirected funds allocated by Congress to hire more Secret Service agents," said Congressman Gabe Amo (D-RI). "Americans can't afford gas and groceries, but this is Trump's priority."
Similarly, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said: "While families are struggling to afford groceries, gas, and rent, Trump is spending at least $900 million on his latest cosmetic project. Trump's priorities? Trump."
Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) declared that "Trump isn't helping your household afford the basics. He's too busy spending your tax dollars making the White House a tacky mess."
"The National Park Service is being used as a piggy bank," said one critic.
Internal documents from the US National Park Service reportedly show that massive sums of money have been diverted to fund assorted projects commissioned by President Donald Trump.
According to a Sunday report from journalist Scott MacFarlane, NPS records show that $323 million has been rerouted to fund projects on the White House grounds this year alone, representing an increase of nearly 5,000% from the amount spend on such projects in 2024.
Additionally, the documents show NPS allotted nearly $100 million for projects on the Washington National Mall, a tenfold increase on the amount spent two years ago.
At the same time, the records show "multimillion-dollar reductions" in funding for several famous national parks, including Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Grand Canyon.
In fact, the total spending for projects at the White House and National Mall is larger than the combined spending at nine of the largest US national parks, MacFarlane found.
One anonymous federal employee who spoke with MacFarlane said that the spending shifts documented in internal records are "part of a pattern of the National Park Service being forced to prioritize Trump’s vanity projects over our own needs."
Tim Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, similarly argued that "the National Park Service is being used as a piggy bank for Trump’s vanity projects," which he said was "costing the American people."
Some Democratic critics of Trump pounced on the report, which they said was the latest example of the president corruptly wasting taxpayer dollars.
"Let’s ask the American people," wrote Democrats on the US House Ways and Means Committee in a social media post, "would you rather have your nearest national park preserved and protected or another monument to Trump?"
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), whose state has been hit by devastating wildfires this summer, accused the president of "raiding wildfire prevention funding to pay for his vanity projects."
Fred Wellman, a Democratic candidate for the US House of Representatives in Missouri, said that "Trump and his complicit Republican Congress have been robbing us to gild statues and build his private home without any oversight or approval."
"This is theft on a grand scale," Wellman added, "and all of us are paying for it."
"The president has no... constitutionally assigned authority over that property."
A federal court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump must halt most construction of his $400 million White House ballroom project, siding with a lower court that said it must be authorized by Congress.
“Each president is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its executive residence,” wrote judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia in a 2-1 decision for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. "The president has no—and claims no—constitutionally assigned authority over that property."
Friday’s ruling only affects the above-ground portions of the project. The construction of a fortified underground bunker and other “national security facilities” beneath the site is allowed to continue.
Trump has already demolished the East Wing of the White House to make room for the project, which he has said will be entirely privately funded, mostly by corporate donors, many of whom had business before the executive branch. However, reporting from The Washington Post in June revealed that he had secretly planned to dip into $300 million worth of taxpayer dollars for the project.
At Trump's urging, Republicans have attempted to add $1 billion in taxpayer money to the federal budget to pay for the project's security features, but the proposal to pass it through budget reconciliation without approval from Democrats was rejected by the Senate parliamentarian.
The court's majority said it’s ruling “has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy… What it does mean is that the defendants may not do so during the district court’s expeditious litigation without securing Congress’s authorization, as the Constitution and laws require.”
Brent Leggs, the CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which sued to block the ballroom’s construction in December, said Friday was “a great day for our country and for the American people’s right to voice their opinions about the historic places they cherish, including the White House.”
"The White House, a global landmark that symbolizes American identity and the ideals of democracy, belongs to the American people," he said.
Trump reacted with predictable fury on Truth Social.
"We will be immediately appealing to the United States Supreme Court," he wrote. "The Military and Secret Service are viewing this horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful ruling as a National Security threat to our Nation in that the entire Complex is being built for the protection of our Country and, additionally, all future Presidents."
The ruling is the second blow to one of Trump’s vanity projects this week. A report by the National Park Service recently found that his planned “Arc de Trump” near the National Mall could compromise the historical significance and "integrity" of dozens of other historic landmarks.
"I am trying to see how this operation differs from a classic organized crime protection racket. I see little distinction."
A Thursday report in The Wall Street Journal revealed new details on President Donald Trump's attempts to shake down major corporate donors to fund his assorted vanity projects, including the construction of his luxury White House ballroom and his presidential library.
According to the Journal, Trump employs a fundraiser named Meredith O’Rourke whose job is to hound corporations into sending money to the president's projects.
O'Rourke's work is so important to the president, the Journal added, that he asks her for updates on her progress in raking in corporate cash almost nightly.
"Trump asks O’Rourke which companies and donors have cut checks and which haven’t, and for how much," the Journal reported. "He often asks her to make much larger financial requests than she was planning—for some donors the ask is $5 million, for others it is $50 million. And the president gives her names to call, often including people who have recently met with him, according to people with knowledge of the calls."
The Journal estimated that Trump has raised more than $800 million from corporate donors throughout his second term, and the newspaper found that it appeared to be entirely legal.
"No laws prohibit presidents from raising unlimited sums of money for nonprofits, like the ones used for the ballroom and his presidential library, his super PAC, or political issue committees," the Journal explained. "For most of these types of transactions, public disclosure of donors isn’t required and reporting on spending is infrequent."
Regardless of technical legality, many critics called the president's actions deeply corrupt, especially since many of the companies being shaken down for cash have business before the federal government.
" Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in our nation’s history," wrote Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in reaction to the Journal's report.
Adam Serwer, staff writer at The Atlantic, joked that Trump technically "can’t be bought" because "he is subscription based."
"You have to keep bribing him forever," Serwer quipped.
Eric Rauchway, historian at the University of California, Davis, noted the Journal's reporting that O'Rourke will sometimes try to persuade corporate donors by telling them that "the boss wants this money," which he likened to a mafia extortion scheme.
"Guys, 'the boss wants this money' is not 'fundraising,'" wrote Rauchway, "it's a Piranha Brothers operation."
Scott Horton, contributing editor at Harper's, made a similar analogy.
"I am trying to see how this operation differs from a classic organized crime protection racket," Horton wrote. "I see little distinction."
Amanda Carpenter, writer and editor at Protect Democracy, argued that Trump wasn't the only party meriting criticism here, as the corporations who give in to his demands deserve blame as well.
"If a politician is selling access and favors, CEOs aren’t off the hook," she observed. "They don’t get to just pay to play. It’s not a free pass to bribe and extort and corrupt our economy. There are many legal tools to track that on the private side and hold them account for their end of these dirty deals."