GOP's $1B White House Ballroom Proposal Draws Backlash From Trump Critics
Republicans have proposed $1 billion in federal funding for security upgrades related to the planned White House ballroom, sparking criticism from Democrats who argue it contradicts earlier claims that the project would not cost taxpayers. The White House maintains that private donations will cover construction costs, while public funds would only support necessary security enhancements. Critics, however, question the scale and necessity of the expenditure amid broader economic concerns.
- ▪The $1 billion funding proposal is part of a Republican reconciliation package and is intended for Secret Service security upgrades around the White House.
- ▪The White House insists the ballroom's construction will be funded entirely by private donations, initially estimated at $200 million and later increased to $400 million.
- ▪Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley is leading the push for the funding, which could pass with a simple majority, avoiding a filibuster.
- ▪Democrats and public critics argue the funding undermines Trump’s repeated claims that the project would cost taxpayers nothing.
- ▪The recent assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner has been cited as justification for enhanced security infrastructure.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
By Suzanne BlakeReporter, Consumer & Social TrendsShareNewsweek is a Trust Project memberSee more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.A Republican push to approve $1 billion in federal funding tied to a planned White House ballroom has sparked sharp backlash from Democrats, who argue that the proposal undermines earlier statements by President Donald Trump that the project would not cost taxpayers any money. Commenting on the funding push, Democratic Representative Yassamin Ansari of Arizona wrote on X on Monday: "Add the ballroom to the laundry list of things Trump said someone else would pay for. Ultimately, of course, it's always the American people footing the bill for his outrageous pet projects.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Newsweek.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Newsweek
