# Will the next Democratic President have the guts to tear down the Ballroom? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 21, 2026, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477 "2026-08-21T22:35:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2026, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/81 "2026-08-24T19:22:23Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > > [@DrDeth](#): > > > > Bush had the Press Room completely gutted and modernized, and a few other changes to the White House, including solar power. Obama did not change it back. > > I haven’t checked, but I assume Bush did it legally and through proper channels. And remodeling the press room is a whole lot different than taking down the East Wing (after promising it won’t be touched). And it was clear that Bush didn’t authorize those projects in order to glorify himself. Hence there was no reason for Obama to change them. To state the obvious, this is an unprecedented situation. If 98% of what Trump does is For the Glory of Trump then undoing it becomes a statement about the nature of the nation: that we are not North Korea. That we don’t exist to serve a dictator. No matter how timid some Democrats might be about ‘rocking the boat’ (or ‘offending some Americans’) by making changes, those changes are important to make. Otherwise they would be rubber-stamping the North-Koreafication of the USA. ---
**Author:** ![Pardel-Lux](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pardel-lux/32/20182_2.png) [@Pardel-Lux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pardel-Lux)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2026, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/82 "2026-08-24T19:22:59Z")
I don’t think you need a crowbar to remove gilded styrofoam from a plaster wall. If you apply a lighter to it you can show the MAGAs that the stuff violates fire regulations. You can probably peel it off with a spoon while making music with it! 😄 > [@elbows](#): > > […] Arlington Cemetery […] One of his first acts was to remove every black person and woman off that sign. He really did that? That is pettier than I imagined. He does so much shit that this went under my radar. What an… aw, you already know that, and this is not the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2026, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/83 "2026-08-24T20:47:30Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > For those in favour of leaving things as he’s made them, I have a question. One of his early acts once in office concerned Arlington Cemetery. Near the entry there is a large sign indicating where prominent heroes and war generals, etc, are buried. > > One of his first acts was to remove every black person and woman off that sign. > > You going to leave that too? Because a President did it? Because it would look petty to change it back? There’s a pretty big difference between changing a few signs and demolishing a new building that cost several hundred million, and then building something else that will cost a similar amount. I say that we should fight to prevent it being built, but if it gets built anyway, just accept it and move on. One of those things where it shouldn’t have happened, but it did and we can’t really undo it. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2026, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/84 "2026-08-24T20:53:32Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > we can’t really undo it. I mean… yes, they can. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2026, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/85 "2026-08-24T21:09:15Z")
Especially when the building code violations see the light. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2026, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/86 "2026-08-24T22:52:54Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > What would be brilliant is that a Democratic president names the ballroom after Obama or Biden. In which case MAGA would tear it down. Which would be exquisitely subtle … albeit with wrecking balls. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2026, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/87 "2026-08-24T23:17:40Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > One of those things where it shouldn’t have happened, but it did and we can’t really undo it. Wanna bet? Guess what happens when a homeowner builds something without a permit—they make them tear it down and remove it. I don’t see that this is much different. Trump is blatantly breaking the law. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2026, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/88 "2026-08-24T23:54:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > A willingness to do _something_ other than their usual routine of desperate and futile groveling to the Republicans in hopes of approval from their lords and masters. Like Impeaching trump- _twice_? [https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic-leaning\_congressional\_opposition\_to\_the\_Trump\_administration,\_2017](https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic-leaning_congressional_opposition_to_the_Trump_administration,_2017) \*\> On January 9, 2017, Democrats in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House introduced legislation to “require the President and Vice President to disclose and divest any potential financial conflicts of interest.” In the U.S. Senate, the bill was introduced by Sen. [Elizabeth Warren](https://ballotpedia.org/Elizabeth_Warren "Elizabeth Warren") (D-Mass.) with 23 other Democratic senators as cosponsors. The U.S. House bill was introduced by Rep. [Katherine Clark](https://ballotpedia.org/Katherine_Clark "Katherine Clark") (D-Mass.) with five other cosponsors. The Senate version of the bill specified that, should the bill be passed into law, noncompliance of the act would “constitute a high crime or misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.”[[1]](https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic-leaning_congressional_opposition_to_the_Trump_administration,_2017#cite_note-1)[[2]](https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic-leaning_congressional_opposition_to_the_Trump_administration,_2017#cite_note-2) > - On June 14, 2017, 196 [Democrats](https://ballotpedia.org/Democrats "Democrats") in the House and Senate filed a federal lawsuit alleged that Trump was in violation of the foreign emoluments clause in the Constitution… > > ##### Opposition to Trump Cabinet nominations > > - Senate Minority Leader [Chuck Schumer](https://ballotpedia.org/Chuck_Schumer "Chuck Schumer") (D-N.Y.) outlined a Democratic strategy targeting eight of Trump’s Cabinet nominees. According to _The Washington Post_, Schumer indicated that Democrats would slow down the confirmation process for Trump’s nominees who did not disclose what Democrats considered to be sufficient financial and ethics reports. Perhaps you have not been keeping up? The Democrats do not control the House, or the Senate. Other than a filibuster, there is little they can do- legally. Not to mention trump was convicted of many felonies. > [@robby](#): > > Trump is blatantly breaking the law. Cite? > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > I say that we should fight to prevent it being built, but if it gets built anyway, just accept it and move on. One of those things where it shouldn’t have happened, but it did and we can’t really undo it. It is nice to hear some sanity. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2026, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/89 "2026-08-25T00:06:22Z")
> [@robby](#): > > > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > > > One of those things where it shouldn’t have happened, but it did and we can’t really undo it. > > Wanna bet? Guess what happens when a homeowner builds something without a permit—they make them tear it down and remove it. I don’t see that this is much different. Trump is blatantly breaking the law. I agree with your last sentence. But it IS different from when “a homeowner builds something without a permit.” For one thing, the rules are different for the White House. You do not need D.C. permits, although there are some other requirements. But the big difference is that the state, or the District, can order you to take a new house wing down at your expense. Whereas with building a wing on the White House, the money must be appropriated by Congress. Also, in Trump’s case, SCOTUS is extremely slow to issue orders requiring the President to follow the Antideficiency Act, and may never do so. But they will shut down a lawless Democratic president a lot quicker. Court packing? I expect that even Democratic judges would order a Democratic president to stop unappropriated spending. This thread remains problematic to me because I don’t know what the President needed the thread title guts for. Making fixing up the White House a top legislative priority would be less a guts move than a foolish one. But if congress appropriates money to restore the East Wing more or less on its own, it would take no presidential guts. Without appropriated funds, it requires the same kind of guts as any dictator who defies courts. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2026, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/90 "2026-08-25T02:36:08Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@robby](#): > > > > Trump is blatantly breaking the law. > > Cite? Here you go: - [40 U.S.C. § 8106](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title40-section8106&num=0&edition=prelim): A building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress. - The Antideficiency Act ([31 U.S.C. § 1341](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title%3A31%20section%3A1341%20edition%3Aprelim)%20)): This law prevents any federal employee or executive official from spending federal funds, or involving the government in contracts for future payments, before Congress has formally appropriated those funds. It’s as simple as this: Congress authorizes expenditures, not the President. Congress has not authorized construction of a $400 million ballroom. In addition, as stated above, federal statutes give Congress exclusive authority over federal property regulation, funding, and major structural changes or construction on White House grounds. > **[Appeals court rules Trump can't build White House ballroom without...](https://apnews.com/article/trump-ballroom-court-ruling-1528247275ec6103da892d271d4ee883)** > > A federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s administration must stop construction of the $400 million White House ballroom because Congress has not approved the project. This ruling has been been temporarily stayed by the Supreme Court, but has not yet made it there for a final ruling. Nevertheless, considering how compromised and corrupt this Supreme Court is, I expect them to find some pretext to allow him to proceed. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2026, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/91 "2026-08-25T03:05:00Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > But the big difference is that the state, or the District, can order you to take a new house wing down at your expense. Whereas with building a wing on the White House, the money must be appropriated by Congress. What if we use donated funds? 😉 Or pretend to do so, like Trump currently is? > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > This thread remains problematic to me because I don’t know what the President needed the thread title guts for. If the Supreme Court rules that Trump can unilaterally tear down the East Wing and build his gold-plated ballroom, what other than having the guts to do so prevents a future president from tearing it down and replacing it with a new East Wing? Among other things, the ballroom will be an eyesore that overwhelms the rest of the White House. That is reason enough to tear it down, in my book. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > But if congress appropriates money to restore the East Wing more or less on its own, it would take no presidential guts. I agree that the proper way to demolish the ballroom is for Congress to authorize it. Which means it likely won’t happen, more’s the pity. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2026, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/92 "2026-08-25T04:02:10Z")
> [@robby](#): > > It’s as simple as this: Congress authorizes expenditures, not the President. Congress has not authorized construction of a $400 million ballroom. > **[The decades-old exemption that lets Trump reconstruct the White House](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c397jvrrm4mo)** > > The White House and several other buildings are exempt from the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. > _ **Trump’s renovation appears to be the biggest in decades** _, but the president of the US does have the power to make those changes [https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5569609-white-house-east-wing-trump-demolition-authority/](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5569609-white-house-east-wing-trump-demolition-authority/) > Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to identify and assess the effects its actions may have on historic buildings. > > “Under Section 106, each federal agency must consider public views and concerns about historic preservation issues when making final project decisions,” according to the U.S. [General Services Administration’s website](https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/historic-preservation/historic-preservation-policy-tools/legislation-policy-and-reports/section-106-of-the-national-historic-preservation-act). > > However, Section 107 exempts the buildings and grounds of White House, the Capitol and the Supreme Court from adhering to the previous section… > Last month, Trump’s appointed chair of the commission, Will Scharf, said the ballroom project did not require the panel’s approval for construction to begin, [The Associated Press reported](https://apnews.com/article/trump-ballroom-national-planning-commission-approval-f537fa373705d560a9842b6250aee9ef). > [@robby](#): > > - The Antideficiency Act ([31 U.S.C. § 1341](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title%3A31%20section%3A1341%20edition%3Aprelim)%20)): This law prevents any federal employee or executive official from spending federal funds, or involving the government in contracts for future payments, before Congress has formally appropriated those funds. > make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation; Congress had already budgeted **$377 million** for executive residence repairs and renovations in fiscal year 2026. And the ballroom is being built by private donations, thus no federal money needed. > [@robby](#): > > Nevertheless, considering how compromised and corrupt this Supreme Court is, I expect them to find some pretext to allow him to proceed. Note that SCOTUS has ruled against trump on quite a few issues-Global Tariffs, Federal Reserve Independence, and as has been covered in P&E- Civil Judgments. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2026, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/93 "2026-08-25T04:35:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to identify and assess the effects its actions may have on historic buildings. > > “Under Section 106, each federal agency must consider public views and concerns about historic preservation issues when making final project decisions,” according to the U.S. [General Services Administration’s website](https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/historic-preservation/historic-preservation-policy-tools/legislation-policy-and-reports/section-106-of-the-national-historic-preservation-act). > > However, Section 107 exempts the buildings and grounds of White House, the Capitol and the Supreme Court from adhering to the previous section… You’re talking about a different statute entirely (the National Historic Preservation Act). What about the one I cited? > [@robby](#): > > - [40 U.S.C. § 8106](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title40-section8106&num=0&edition=prelim): A building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Congress had already budgeted **$377 million** for executive residence repairs and renovations in fiscal year 2026. Was the $377 million allocated for tearing down the East Wing and building a ballroom, or was it a slush fund the President can spend on whatever he wanted? > [@DrDeth](#): > > And the ballroom is being built by private donations, thus no federal money needed. Right. 🙄 First off, costs have ballooned far past what was announced for donations. Secondly, the construction of this monstrosity is going to create ongoing maintenance costs indefinitely into the future that I am sure the donations are not covering. Thirdly, it’s actually against the law to incur a debt against the federal government without authorization even if no federal funds are at risk. This is part of the same Antideficiency Act. This has come up in the case of government shutdowns where nonessential government workers are actually prohibited from working without congressional authorization, even if they offer to work for free. I stand by what I said. Trump is blatantly breaking the law, and with Congress supine, is daring the courts to do something about it. The lower courts have tried, but all signs point to the Supreme Court rolling over as well. I sometimes wonder if SCOTUS is afraid to rule against him for something as minor as the ballroom (in the grand scheme of things) for fear of him possibly ignoring their ruling. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2026, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/94 "2026-08-25T04:42:02Z")
> [@robby](#): > > Trump is blatantly breaking the law, and with Congress supine, is daring the courts to do something about it. OTOH Congress has not approved it. > [@robby](#): > > The lower courts have tried, but all signs point to the Supreme Court rolling over as well. > **[The Supreme Court Let Trump’s Ballroom Proceed—for Now. Here’s What That Means](https://time.com/article/2026/08/23/the-supreme-court-let-trumps-ballroom-proceed-for-now-heres-what-that-means/)** > > An administrative stay allows aboveground construction to continue while the Court considers the Trump Administration’s emergency request. > That led to the administrative stay—a short-term order that freezes a lower court decision or deadline in order to buy time for a bench to review an emergency request. An administrative stay does not reflect a case’s merits or legality; it acts as an interim measure for a future ruling from Roberts or the Court. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2026, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/95 "2026-08-25T04:42:40Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Congress had already budgeted **$377 million** for executive residence repairs and renovations in fiscal year 2026. And the ballroom is being built by private donations, thus no federal money needed. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/06/16/records-reveal-600m-estimate-trumps-ballroom-project-with-half-taxpayers/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/06/16/records-reveal-600m-estimate-trumps-ballroom-project-with-half-taxpayers/) > Internal contractor documents reviewed by investigative journalists place the total construction cost closer to $600 million. “These records indicate that over half of the total expense involves public funds, including federal security upgrades, Secret Service involvement, and military office support. Details on this dispute are outlined by [Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/08/22/trump-again-claims-taxpayers-arent-on-the-hook-for-ballroom-but-contractor-says-otherwise/)” And yes, IMHO what the Supreme court did there is one of most common tools used by the powerful: “Justice delayed, Justice denied” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2026, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/96 "2026-08-25T04:43:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > “These records indicate that over half of the total expense involves public funds, including federal security upgrades, Secret Service involvement, and military office support True, but then there are those private donations. This is not a simple issue, not open and shut. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2026, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/97 "2026-08-25T05:06:40Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > True, but then there are those private donations. This is not a simple issue, not open and shut. What is clear, is that the current admin are dangerous half-lying manipulators. > **[This Is the Most Dangerous Type of Manipulator (And How to Spot Them)](https://www.vice.com/en/article/this-is-the-most-dangerous-type-of-manipulator-and-how-to-spot-them/)** > > Experts say partial truths can be especially disorienting because they blur reality and make you question your own memory and judgment. > “It can be hard to tell when a person is using manipulation when they are telling partial truths,” says Krista Walker, LCSW, J.D., Clinical Director at [The Ohana Luxury Addiction Treatment Center](https://theohanahawaii.com/what-we-treat/drug-addiction/). “They may tell you something that is partially true while leaving out key information. It’s important to pay attention to the overall pattern rather than each statement.” > > For example, someone who flat-out lies to you is usually easy to spot. On the other hand, someone who tells half-truths while intentionally keeping out important details that would otherwise influence your perspective is a bit more difficult to identify. Not to mention, dealing with this type of person can be incredibly disorienting. You might feel gaslit or try to justify their actions by telling yourself, “Technically, they didn’t lie to me…” ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2026, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/98 "2026-08-25T12:38:48Z")
As Claude Raines said in _Lawrence of Arabia_, “A man who tells lies merely hides the truth. But a man who tells half-lies has forgotten where he put it.” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2026, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/99 "2026-08-25T17:23:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What is clear, is that the current admin are dangerous half-lying manipulators. Well, none of us are arguing against that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2026, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477/100 "2026-08-25T17:52:57Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > @robby : > > > make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation; > > Congress had already budgeted **$377 million** for executive residence repairs and renovations in fiscal year 2026. And the ballroom is being built by private donations, thus no federal money needed. Well, lets not repeat what they declare as if there was no need to point out how misleading Trump and henchmen are there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-next-democratic-president-have-the-guts-to-tear-down-the-ballroom/1032477.md?page=6)