Donald Trump has essentially taken a wrecking ball to the White House, and the federal courts appear powerless to intervene.
The East Wing was demolished without public deliberation or congressional authorization and is currently being replaced by a 90,000-square-foot luxury ballroom that is twice the size of the existing White House complex.
This represents an affront to the rule of law, to American history, and to every citizen of the United States, because the White House ultimately belongs to the American people, not to whoever temporarily occupies it.
If the gravity of this precedent is not apparent, consider this: lawyers from the Trump administration’s Department of Justice argued in court that a president could order the demolition of the Statue of Liberty and that there would effectively be no remedy available, since the courts would lack the speed necessary to prevent the action.
The Supreme Court recently validated that position. Chief Justice John Roberts joined three Democratic-appointed justices in seeking to halt the destruction of the East Wing. Roberts authored an opinion stating that the construction is likely unlawful because Congress never authorized it.
The facts support this view. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish all rules governing “property belonging to the United States.” For two centuries, the White House has been renovated and maintained through congressional authorization and appropriations. Alterations and improvements to the executive residence have never entailed unilateral demolition.
However, in a departure from precedent, Roberts and the Democratic justices were outvoted by the other five Republican-appointed justices. In an unsigned order, they declined to address the legality of the project, stating only that the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.
So who possesses standing if not these plaintiffs? The answer should be “any American citizen.” This is our collective history and legacy. There are laws designed to ensure that no president can behave like a monarch and destroy historic public property on a whim.
The National Trust articulated this principle clearly following the ruling. “We are deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court’s ruling today,” said its president and CEO, Brent Leggs. The order “does not resolve our fundamental argument: that each president is a temporary steward of the People’s House and does not have the unilateral authority to demolish and redesign it without the approval of Congress.” The Trust concluded that it “will continue to advocate, with our partners, on behalf of the American people, the democratic values of our nation, and the preservation of our country’s most historically significant places.”
Nonetheless, the Trump demolition effort continues unabated. According to the government’s own court filings, a crew of 250 workers has been operating 20 hours per day, seven days a week, disregarding lower court rulings. The administration informed the courts that the structure is “beyond the point of return.” The objective is to create a fait accompli: by the time judges render a definitive ruling on legality, the ballroom will already be constructed.
This tactic resembles methods employed by organized crime figures, and it follows a recognizable pattern. Trump has attempted to reshape the Kennedy Center according to his personal aesthetic. He paved over the Rose Garden. He is constructing a massive triumphal arch and has suggested naming it after himself. He has applied gilded finishes to virtually every surface of the White House. The gilding can eventually be removed. Buildings, however, cannot be restored once demolished.
If there is any doubt that these actions are driven by Trump’s insatiable ego, consider his own words: “Nobody will do it once I’m gone. When I leave here, nobody will.”
Then there is the financial dimension. Trump pledged that the ballroom would be funded with “ZERO Dollars of Taxpayer Money,” financed by himself and donors including Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Palantir, and Coinbase—corporations that recognize every interaction with this president is transactional in nature. However, the projected cost escalated from $200 million to $400 million within five months. A side staircase leading nowhere vanished and then reappeared. The contractor’s own estimate now places the actual cost at $600 million, with approximately half of that sum being drawn from the Secret Service and the White House budget. This constitutes public funds. Senate Republicans proposed an additional $1 billion in federal appropriations for “security adjustments and upgrades” connected to the project. The donors receive naming rights. The taxpayers absorb the cost.
To understand how a mob mentality operates a public works project, one need look no further than the Reflecting Pool. The contract was awarded without competitive bidding to a contractor whom Trump claimed had constructed one of his personal swimming pools. A firm with genuine Reflecting Pool experience had been passed over because the July 4 deadline was deemed impractical. The blue coating peeled away. Algae proliferated. Consequently, the administration identified someone to shoulder the blame. That individual was David Hearn, a 67-year-old former Olympic canoeist charged with extensive vandalism using a box cutter—a felony carrying a potential sentence of up to 10 years. His alleged offense, according to his account, was pausing to observe and briefly placing his hand in the water. Subsequently, Jeanine Pirro departed from her customary stance and offered an honest assessment. On July 31, she moved to dismiss the charges, noting in her filing that the accelerated timeline resulted in substandard, flawed work on the reflecting pool. Yet associates of Roy Cohn never acknowledge error; they intensify the deception. Trump responded by disagreeing “100 percent.” He expects his legal representatives to misrepresent facts on his behalf. What was once Lincoln’s mirror is now a $14 million mud puddle.
Republicans would express vehement opposition if a president from the opposite party attempted anything remotely comparable. And they would be justified in doing so. Principles lose their meaning when they are discarded whenever a president from one’s own party acts without restraint. The safeguards that once depended on a president’s prudence and basic decency can no longer be assumed.
This leads to a straightforward proposal. Democratic presidential candidates should commit to dismantling Trump’s luxury ballroom and restoring the East Wing to its original configuration, thereby preserving the historic symmetry of the White House. Any subterranean security infrastructure that has been installed should remain, as practical national security measures are appropriate. However, the above-ground monument to a single individual’s ego should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
When the remaining Republican justices ultimately determine who possesses standing to challenge the destruction of the White House, it will be after Trump has departed from office. They will likely conclude that the demolition was unlawful—yet on those grounds declare that the next president cannot possibly demolish Trump’s ballroom. This approach would allow the transgression to persist without consequence. The objective of this proposal is not to perpetuate Trump’s cycle of destruction but to terminate it by establishing accountability for violations of the law and ensuring such actions cannot recur.
Trump subjected the People’s House to demolition. The people should retain the prerogative to subject his ballroom to the same fate.
