WH announces construction of 90,000 sq foot ballroom to WH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I walk by the White House frequentlvand I’m still having trouble picturing this. What is in the space now that there are going to lose? Seems like it will also be a heating/cooling disaster for future admins.

The East Wing will be demolished. I think Teddy Roosevelt had it built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a lovely addition to the White House, and a great way for the Best President in American History to cement his legacy as a hero to the American People.

His taste is fantastic, I love all of the well thought out, classy touches, and the fact it exudes power.

The American People won’t be allowed to ever go inside of that. Trump sure is a man of the people huh?

Ignore the troll.

[Anonymous]

The east and west wings are small and don’t distract from the residence. This ballroom will be equal in size or greater than the residence. And for what, a few state dinners during a presidents term?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, so you're incensed because you think this kind of thing is... a woman's job? Specifically, the First Lady? Get over yourself. This is being paid for entirely with private funds and will benefit all future administrations.

As a taxpayer, I’m not getting the “benefit” here.

You’ll probably get an opportunity to host a wedding or other event in the space, if you make a sizable donation to the Trump presidential library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, so you're incensed because you think this kind of thing is... a woman's job? Specifically, the First Lady? Get over yourself. This is being paid for entirely with private funds and will benefit all future administrations.

As a taxpayer, I’m not getting the “benefit” here.

As a taxpayer, you're not paying a dime for this, so don't you fret. The benefit is for future presidents and their administrations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ballroom is evidence America has eclipsed France culturally, even in cuisine, because France does not have BBQ. I would say America has entered a new Gilded Age, eclipsing all of Europe which stands like a waif in our shadow.

A massive BBQ smoker grill should be installed and then there would be some real parties going on in there.

The last South Park episode portrayed what we’re in for to a T.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, so you're incensed because you think this kind of thing is... a woman's job? Specifically, the First Lady? Get over yourself. This is being paid for entirely with private funds and will benefit all future administrations.

As a taxpayer, I’m not getting the “benefit” here.

As a taxpayer, you're not paying a dime for this, so don't you fret. The benefit is for future presidents and their administrations.

To throw ballroom blitzes for the wealthy… mmmkay….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, so you're incensed because you think this kind of thing is... a woman's job? Specifically, the First Lady? Get over yourself. This is being paid for entirely with private funds and will benefit all future administrations.

As a taxpayer, I’m not getting the “benefit” here.

Much larger capacity than the current hosting room.

To host more toe kissers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, so you're incensed because you think this kind of thing is... a woman's job? Specifically, the First Lady? Get over yourself. This is being paid for entirely with private funds and will benefit all future administrations.

As a taxpayer, I’m not getting the “benefit” here.

As a taxpayer, you're not paying a dime for this, so don't you fret. The benefit is for future presidents and their administrations.

Future presidents don't want this, just like past presidents didn't want this. The benefit is for Trump and those fortunate enough to bribe him by funding his ballroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so funny - and typical - that none of you acknowledge this is being built using private funds. It will also benefit all the presidents to come. Not taxpayer funded at all. Idiots.

"Leavitt characterized the new construction — which she said will be funded by Trump and other private donors"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/construction-on-trump-s-200-million-white-house-ballroom-to-begin-in-september/ar-AA1JFKsY?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Are you actually stupid enough to believe these donors aren’t getting paid back and then some with special favors?

So, you'd say the same about any donor to any presidential project? Do you hear yourself?

DP. Is there a precedent for this? What’s another example of a renovation to the White House funded by private donors?

There isn't because is the effing white house.

Serious question: how old are you people?? Regardless, don't you know even a little bit of history? Jackie Kennedy's renovation of the entire WH, paid for with private funds? JFC.

They know no history; they don't even bother to watch the documentary about her renovations and the fundraising.

Now our tax payer dollars are going to build a huge golden ball room and outfit a golden jet.

Except our tax payer dollars are NOT paying for this.

That means you're good with the Fed renovations too. Since taxpayer monies are not being used.

Public money is indeed being used for the Fed renovations.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/14/nx-s1-5467236/federal-reserve-trump-white-house-attacks-renovations-interest-rates
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/why-trump-is-targeting-the-feds-25-billion-renovation/ar-AA1JfeRP?ocid=BingNewsSerp
https://fortune.com/2025/07/26/federal-reserve-self-funding-headquarters-renovation-costs-taxpayer-dollars/

[Anonymous]

Should candidates for House, Senate, Governor be asked if they will attend events in this ballroom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump had the famed Rose Garden ripped up for this concrete monstrosity.

Easy enough to fix. A future President will revert this back to a lawn.

I prefer it the way it was, but at least this is ADA compliant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I walk by the White House frequentlvand I’m still having trouble picturing this. What is in the space now that there are going to lose? Seems like it will also be a heating/cooling disaster for future admins.

The East Wing will be demolished. I think Teddy Roosevelt had it built.

Yes, and at the time, he was roundly criticized for building it.

The East Wing, the space earmarked for the new ballroom, was itself targeted for criticism in Roosevelt’s time.

“Congressional Republicans labeled the expenditure as wasteful, with some accusing Roosevelt of using the project to bolster his presidency’s image,” McLaurin wrote.

“However,” he wrote, “the East Wing’s utility in supporting the modern presidency eventually quieted critics.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-beautiful-ballroom-and-a-new-lincoln-bathroom-trump-relishes-remaking-the-white-house/ar-AA1JFS7Z?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, so you're incensed because you think this kind of thing is... a woman's job? Specifically, the First Lady? Get over yourself. This is being paid for entirely with private funds and will benefit all future administrations.

As a taxpayer, I’m not getting the “benefit” here.

As a taxpayer, you're not paying a dime for this, so don't you fret. The benefit is for future presidents and their administrations.

To throw ballroom blitzes for the wealthy… mmmkay….

You mean state dinners for other heads of state? mmmkay...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For reference, an NFL football field is the same size. wtf.

I thought we needed to save money?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/31/trump-ballroom-east-wing-overhaul/

Have you ever watched trump moving his gargantuan body in gyrations he calls dancing? Ballrooms are for waltzing to Strauss not jerky movements by someone who is beat deaf to music and looks silly pretending to dance by only lifting one foot and then the other.