Trump’s White House Ballroom Sparks Questions About Funding and Ethics

The White House announced on July 31 that a 90,000-square-foot ballroom to serve as an “event space” for state dinners and special occasions would be built at a cost of $200 million, and that Trump and “other patriot donors” would pay for the structure. The president has said repeatedly that he would pay for the ballroom. In mid-September, he also increased the estimate of its cost, telling reporters, “I’m paying for it. The country is not – and that’s an expensive ballroom. I think it’ll cost $250 million.”

On Oct. 22, Trump increased the estimated cost of the ballroom to $300 million.

We’ve received many emails from readers asking about the cost and the source of funding for the ballroom being constructed as part of the White House complex.

On Oct. 15, the president hosted a dinner at the White House to raise funds for building the ballroom. Among those attending the affair were representatives from Amazon, Apple, Caterpillar, Coinbase Global, Comcast, Google, Lockheed Martin, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Palantir Technologies and T-Mobile, as well as “wealthy supporters” of Trump’s presidential campaign, the New York Times reported.

Heavy machinery tears down a section of the East Wing of the White House as construction begins on Trump’s planned ballroom on Oct. 22. Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images.

The day after demolition began on the East Wing where the ballroom will be located, a White House spokesperson told us in an Oct. 21 email that “nearly $200 million has so far been pledged to fund the new ballroom.” The spokesperson did not answer a question regarding how much Trump himself had pledged.

The defense technology firm Lockheed Martin has pledged $10 million to the project, CBS News reported, citing anonymous sources. A legal settlement by YouTube with Trump — who sued the platform for removing his account following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot — will direct $22 million toward the ballroom, the Hill reported. Google will reportedly donate at least $5 million.

The list of donors and how much they have pledged has not been released by the White House.

The ballroom project and the fundraising process have come under criticism from Democrats and experts in government ethics.

“The project at the White House is a gigantic boondoggle,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut told Fox News. “The important question is not only the damage that it could do to the architecture of the White House, but also what contributors would have over Trump if they are giving to this project.”

Rep. Darren Soto of Florida said on X, “Trump is building a fancy White House Ballroom for his rich buddies.”

Ethical Concerns About Private Funding

Ethics and legal experts raised other concerns about the ballroom project. Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told Axios that the White House fundraising dinner could affect public trust in government. “All of this money that they’re giving for something that’s important to the president could influence his decision making, and he could be thinking about that instead of thinking about what’s best for the American people,” Bookbinder said.

Richard W. Painter, a professor at Minnesota Law who served as the chief ethics lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office under President George W. Bush, told us that Trump’s ballroom fundraising crosses several ethical lines.

“First,” Painter said in an email, “this is use of public office for private gain in violation of federal ethics rules.” He cited the Code of Federal Regulations, which says government employees “may not use or permit the use of their Government position or title, or any authority associated with their public office, in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to the employee.”

Painter also said the ballroom project raises a “problem under the Antideficiency Act.” The act “prohibits federal agencies from receiving voluntary services or other gifts from outside sources to ‘top off’ funds appropriated by Congress,” Painter explained.

“Of course the White House will argue that it is not an ‘agency’ subject to this law, but in the past the White House abided by this law. We did during the Bush Administration. The White House did not have authority to receive gifts,” he said.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the Antideficiency Act “requires agencies to generally stop their operations” during a government shutdown. “This protects Congress’s power over federal spending by preventing the executive branch from operating without funding. This act prohibits agencies from incurring obligations or making payments in advance or in excess of an appropriation.”

“Bottom line is,” the companies making donations for the ballroom construction “want something from the government and they are paying 1) for access to the President and other high ranking officials, and 2) Hoping it will buy them what they want. Many such as Lockheed Martin want big defense department contracts, so our now trillion dollar defense budget … will grow even more, all so we can save taxpayers $200 million building a ballroom the White House doesn’t need,” Painter said.

“Finally the ballroom will be used to entertain big campaign donors by this and future presidents, perpetuating White House pay to play,” he said.

Claire Finkelstein, a University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor and director of the school’s Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law, said she has “a lot of concerns” about the ballroom project.

She noted that donations for the ballroom are being coordinated through a nonprofit charitable organization, the Trust for the National Mall, which then will fund the project. “But I don’t see how adding a ballroom to the White House grounds benefits the public. So it’s not clear to me how a 501(c)(3) should be funding this. That’s one serious problem I have with it,” Finkelstein told us in a phone interview.

“There is also a potential violation of the Emoluments Clause, depending on what Trump would use” the ballroom for, Finkelstein said. The Constitution’s foreign and domestic Emoluments Clauses “exist to prevent U.S. officials from selling influence or favors,” the Brennan Center for Justice explains on its website.

“Is he really going to use it for the duties of his office, or will he entertain a lot of individuals trying to curry favor with the administration or him personally?” Finkelstein asked, adding, this could be “a misuse of public real estate.”

Other Privately Funded Projects in D.C.

The White House ballroom is not the first structure funded, at least partly, through private donations in Washington, D.C.

For example, the $8.4 million needed for the creation of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, completed in 1984, was donated by more than 250,000 individuals and corporations. The Martin Luther King Memorial, completed in 2011, was funded with $110 million in private donations and $10 million in federal funding. Other monuments were funded through the efforts of independent commissions and advisory boards, according to the Trust for the National Mall.

The trust has worked with the National Park Service to provide various improvements to the National Mall, Finkelstein said. “But it’s very important that those projects are publicly oriented. A White House ballroom is not open to the public,” she said, “so it’s not of any obvious public benefit.”

Update, Oct. 23: We updated this article to include Trump’s latest estimated cost of the ballroom of “about $300 million.”

=====

-- By James W. Thomas

© Copyright 2025 JWT Communications. All rights reserved. This article cannot be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten, or distributed in any form without written permission.