This judge, along with all the Democrats are only doing this because they know that this will be a long lasting legacy for Trump's presidency that they will never be able to get rid of. It will be the stamp of his presidential administration that they will have to walk into and use for Decades, if not centuries.

So what is the next level above this assclown?

Who can over rule or stay his stupidity?

It makes sense.
It's great that private money will pay for it, but the government is still taking on the contract, needs to be appropriated.

Kind of like the regents having to approve coaching contracts or major renovations to athletic facilities. They aren't going to pay for it, the 12th Man Foundation is, but the university's name is the one on the contract.

Same here, the federal government is going to be on the contract, and it's going to either take a constitutional amendment to get Trump re-elected or multiple presidents to complete. If this thing runs over budget and the private donors don't like the next president and tell him to kick rocks on the cost overruns, it's the feds that are going to have to pay for it.

CDUB98 said:

---

Please find in The Constitution where Congress must approve any renovations to the White House, especially when it is with private money.

---

Amazing what you can find in the Constitution. Obviously minor stuff can be done, but tearing down the East Wing isn't minor. Trump, as was and will be every President, is a temporary resident of the White House. NOT the owner.

Constitutional Basis

• The Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2): This is the primary source of power. It states that "Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States".
• The Enclave Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17): This grants Congress "exclusive Legislation" over the District of Columbia and other "federal enclaves" (like military bases, arsenals, and dockyards) purchased with state consent.
  Library of Congress Constitution Annotated (.gov) +4

Scope of Power
The Supreme Court has described this authority as "without limitations" in several landmark cases, such as Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976). Key aspects include:
Library of Congress Constitution Annotated (.gov) +1

• Regulatory Control: Congress can enact laws to protect federal lands, including regulating wildlife and activities that may affect those lands, even if they occur on adjacent non-federal property.
• Disposition and Acquisition: Only Congress has the ultimate authority to decide when and how to sell, trade, or give away federal land. While the Executive Branch (e.g., the General Services Administration or U.S. Forest Service) manages these lands day-to-day, they do so only through authority specifically delegated by Congress.
• Supremacy Over States: Federal laws regarding federal property override conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause. States generally cannot tax federal property or regulate it in ways that interfere with federal purposes.
• Specific Restrictions: Recent court rulings have reaffirmed that the President cannot construct significant new projects on federal grounds (like the White House) without explicit congressional approval and funding, as seen in the March 2026 halt of a White House ballroom project.
  Library of Congress Constitution Annotated (.gov) +9

It makes sense…if you have TDS.

So we just want Democrat presidents to sign $300-500 million contracts under the promise of paying for it with private donations? I don't think so....

Some of ya'll's opinions on executive power change drastically depending on if there is D or an R next to the Presidents name.

SunrayAg said:

---

So what is the next level above this assclown?

Who can over rule or stay his stupidity?

---

It's already been appealed and he stayed the order anyway.

Judge Leon's remedy for the ground where the East Wing previously was: https://t.co/GicpA2OR5p pic.twitter.com/yrMPUnts5l

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 1, 2026

The federal judiciary is a meme of itself at this point.

How about writing “Full Stop” in an actual dissent at SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/bXFQSiyzCw

— TrashDiscourse (@TrashDiscourse) March 31, 2026

AggiePops said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Please find in The Constitution where Congress must approve any renovations to the White House, especially when it is with private money.

---

Amazing what you can find in the Constitution. Obviously minor stuff can be done, but tearing down the East Wing isn't minor. Trump, as was and will be every President, is a temporary resident of the White House. NOT the owner.

Constitutional Basis

• The Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2): This is the primary source of power. It states that "Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States".
• The Enclave Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17): This grants Congress "exclusive Legislation" over the District of Columbia and other "federal enclaves" (like military bases, arsenals, and dockyards) purchased with state consent.
  Library of Congress Constitution Annotated (.gov) +4

Scope of Power
The Supreme Court has described this authority as "without limitations" in several landmark cases, such as Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976). Key aspects include:
Library of Congress Constitution Annotated (.gov) +1

• Regulatory Control: Congress can enact laws to protect federal lands, including regulating wildlife and activities that may affect those lands, even if they occur on adjacent non-federal property.
• Disposition and Acquisition: Only Congress has the ultimate authority to decide when and how to sell, trade, or give away federal land. While the Executive Branch (e.g., the General Services Administration or U.S. Forest Service) manages these lands day-to-day, they do so only through authority specifically delegated by Congress.
• Supremacy Over States: Federal laws regarding federal property override conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause. States generally cannot tax federal property or regulate it in ways that interfere with federal purposes.
• Specific Restrictions: Recent court rulings have reaffirmed that the President cannot construct significant new projects on federal grounds (like the White House) without explicit congressional approval and funding, as seen in the March 2026 halt of a White House ballroom project.
  Library of Congress Constitution Annotated (.gov) +9

---

Oh, so there is no exact wording. Only lawyers inferring and interpreting.


Also, there are other details even in that that require further investigation than your ChatGPT.

- "Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"

What is written in these "needful rules and regulations? There may actually be allowance. A shallow answer does not suffice.


- "Specific Restrictions: Recent court rulings have reaffirmed that the President cannot construct significant new projects on federal grounds (like the White House) without explicit congressional approval and funding, as seen in the March 2026 halt of a White House ballroom project."

This is where the ChatGPT was a giveaway. Citing the judge's ruling, which is the main reason for out argument. as the main basis for court precedence really shows that there isn't a true application before this. It's pretty comical and weak.


Moving on, I don't really understand why all you Commies are so bent out of shape about this other than your terminal cases of TDS. This is improving the White House, actually making it better. What should everyone do, just leave a giant hole until Trump leaves office or build it back exactly as it was? This whole temper tantrum is dumb, especially considering it is being paid for with private funds.

I don't even like Trump, but this ballroom is 100% inconsequential to anything. It bothers me none since it is private funds. I would feel the same if it were a Dem president. Consistency, something you TDS sufferers know nothing about.

aggiegolfer2012 said:

---

So we just want Democrat presidents to sign $300-500 million contracts under the promise of paying for it with private donations? I don't think so....

Some of ya'll's opinions on executive power change drastically depending on if there is D or an R next to the Presidents name.

---

Dude, that's the way this place works. If my team does it that is o.k., but if the other team does it, they squeal like a pig caught in a gate. REEEEEE. Hypocrisy at its finest.

A few relevant citations.

Not sure how that is relevant.

It's fairly clear it refers to general maintenance of the building, but also, the new ballroom is funded privately, supposedly.

It's relevant because the ballroom would fit under the description of alteration and the phrase 'as the president may determine' is pretty broad.

The next sentence which I didn't clip basically says that the president will account for the funds.

If federal funds are paying for the design and construction and donors are selling labor and materials at below market rates to the white house, then why wouldn't it be legal? I'm sure these sections are what the president is using for his legal authority and is what the court is objecting to.

CDUB98 said:

---

Not sure how that is relevant.

---

its what the Trump argument is in large part based on.

Quote:

---

Congress has authorized appropriation of funds to the President for "the care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting (including electric power and fixtures) of the Executive Residence at the White House." 3 U.S.C. 105(d)(1) (emphasis added); Pub. L. No. 95-570, 92 Stat. 2445, 2446 (1978). Such sums "may be expended as the President may determine, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law." 3 U.S.C. 105(d). This provision confirms, and indeed presupposes, that the President holds operational control over the White House and vests in him, notwithstanding other statutes, the discretion to determine necessary alterations and improvements. Because the East Wing project constitutes an "alteration" and an "improvement," the President has statutory authority to undertake it.

The Trust principally responds that this reading of "alteration" or "improvement" is too sweeping. See Second PI Br. at 8-9. But as Defendants previously explained, the plain meanings of "alteration" and "improvement" are capacious. To "alter" means "to modify" or "to change the appearance of." Alter, Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989). To "improve" means "to bring into a more profitable or desirable state" or "to make better." Improve, Oxford English Dictionary, (2d ed. 1989). And in the context of real property, "improved" land means land that "has been developed" or is "occupied by buildings and structures." Land, Black's Law Dictionary (12th Ed. 2024); see Improved Land, Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979). Modernization of the East Wing to update infrastructure, increase capacity for hosting state events, and bolster security falls readily within both terms. Replacing an old and dilapidated wing of a structure would "change its appearance" and bring it "into a more … desirable state," and erecting a new structure on land is a quintessential way to "improve" that real property

---

Considering the $2.5MM budget appropriation, it is reasonable to assume that something like this project does not fall within the statute you have listed.

Personal opinion: I do not believe liberally using the word "alteration" from that particular item should apply.

Quote:

---

The Trust principally responds that this reading of "alteration" or "improvement" is too sweeping.

---

I responded to the other post same time as you, but in a broad sense, no pun intended, I agree with this statement.

HOWEVER, let me reiterate, all-in-all, this ballroom renovation does not bother me so long as the funding is private.

Needed to get that last one in as I'm about to go into a long ass meeting and can't respond.

Seems to me that the war room basement would fall under defense spending, which would be a significant part of the overall expense. Maybe even 50%

BMX Bandit said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Not sure how that is relevant.

---

its what the Trump argument is in large part based on.

Quote:

---

Congress has authorized appropriation of funds to the President for "the care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting (including electric power and fixtures) of the Executive Residence at the White House." 3 U.S.C. 105(d)(1) (emphasis added); Pub. L. No. 95-570, 92 Stat. 2445, 2446 (1978). Such sums "may be expended as the President may determine, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law." 3 U.S.C. 105(d). This provision confirms, and indeed presupposes, that the President holds operational control over the White House and vests in him, notwithstanding other statutes, the discretion to determine necessary alterations and improvements. Because the East Wing project constitutes an "alteration" and an "improvement," the President has statutory authority to undertake it.

The Trust principally responds that this reading of "alteration" or "improvement" is too sweeping. See Second PI Br. at 8-9. But as Defendants previously explained, the plain meanings of "alteration" and "improvement" are capacious. To "alter" means "to modify" or "to change the appearance of." Alter, Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989). To "improve" means "to bring into a more profitable or desirable state" or "to make better." Improve, Oxford English Dictionary, (2d ed. 1989). And in the context of real property, "improved" land means land that "has been developed" or is "occupied by buildings and structures." Land, Black's Law Dictionary (12th Ed. 2024); see Improved Land, Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979). Modernization of the East Wing to update infrastructure, increase capacity for hosting state events, and bolster security falls readily within both terms. Replacing an old and dilapidated wing of a structure would "change its appearance" and bring it "into a more … desirable state," and erecting a new structure on land is a quintessential way to "improve" that real property

---

---

Other than all that .....relevance!?

;-)

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

The Trust principally responds that this reading of "alteration" or "improvement" is too sweeping.

---

I responded to the other post same time as you, but in a broad sense, no pun intended, I agree with this statement.

---

Congress failed to define those terms. While Chevron was in effect the executive had more freedom to define them. I'm curious to see how this gets adjudicated in the appeals.

chevron and loper bright don't apply because this was not agency action under APA

CDUB98 said:

---

Considering the $2.5MM budget appropriation, it is reasonable to assume that something like this project does not fall within the statute you have listed.

Personal opinion: I do not believe liberally using the word "alteration" from that particular item should apply.

---

Except its not using that budget. Its private funding via donations. So you can also say those don't even apply as well as an argument.

Asbestos Testing?

FatZilla said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Considering the $2.5MM budget appropriation, it is reasonable to assume that something like this project does not fall within the statute you have listed.

Personal opinion: I do not believe liberally using the word "alteration" from that particular item should apply.

---

Except its not using that budget. Its private funding via donations. So you can also say those don't even apply as well as an argument.

---

It depends how those donations are structured. If the donors are selling materials and labor to the White House for $1.00. Would that not be using the congressional allocated funds?

So they missed some permits and approvals? No big deal, government agencies are known for their efficiency

lb3 said:

---

FatZilla said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Considering the $2.5MM budget appropriation, it is reasonable to assume that something like this project does not fall within the statute you have listed.

Personal opinion: I do not believe liberally using the word "alteration" from that particular item should apply.

---

Except its not using that budget. Its private funding via donations. So you can also say those don't even apply as well as an argument.

---

It depends how those donations are structured. If the donors are selling materials and labor to the White House for $1.00. Would that not be using the congressional allocated funds?

---

Its not to the WH, its to an independent group (Trust for the National Mall, a non-profit partner) overseeing the budget from the monetary donations. WH is overseeing the changes.

How about writing “Full Stop” in an actual dissent at SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/bXFQSiyzCw

— TrashDiscourse (@TrashDiscourse) March 31, 2026

reads like a WaPo OpEd.

Pinochet said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Haven't read the order, just a WSJ story, and apparently, the judge is saying that spending the money, even if it is donated, requires an appropriation from Congress. Goodness knows how many changes have been made to the White House over the years without an Act of Congress authorizing it.

---

This is not correct. Major renovations have historically been approved by Congress.

The renovation during the Bush and Trump administration was approved by Congress.

Truman went to Congress and received approval and funding for the 1948 reno

Calvin Coolidge went to congress and received funding and approval for the 1927 reno.

Fords pool was not . . .

Obama's bball court was not

---

Clinton's jogging track probably wasn't.

---

I can't remember if his humidor was paid for or not.

---

She has a name!

---

When I was at my last company, our simulation lab had a raised floor with panels that could be removed. We used one of these to lift up the panels:



It was named Monica...

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

Is it possible that Trump didn't actually have the authority to tear down a wing of the White House without consulting anyone first?

---

Are you suggesting he came in like a...wrecking ball?

nortex97 said:

---

SunrayAg said:

---

So what is the next level above this assclown?

Who can over rule or stay his stupidity?

---

It's already been appealed and he stayed the order anyway.

Judge Leon's remedy for the ground where the East Wing previously was: https://t.co/GicpA2OR5p pic.twitter.com/yrMPUnts5l

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 1, 2026

The federal judiciary is a meme of itself at this point.

How about writing “Full Stop” in an actual dissent at SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/bXFQSiyzCw

— TrashDiscourse (@TrashDiscourse) March 31, 2026

---

Idk...

I think mentioning Calvinball in a dissent tops pretty much everything.

I halfway expect KBJ to do this in her VRA dissent.

In Powerful Dissent, Ketanji Brown Jackson Simply Writes 'Wakanda Forever' https://t.co/B4t7XeZNki pic.twitter.com/dlakxviUag

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) April 1, 2026

Quote:

---

Top legal analysts admitted that they were also perplexed by the dissenting opinion, saying it used obscure legalese they could not understand.

"No one knows what that means," said lawyer Alan Dershowitz. "Good thing dissenting opinions don't really matter. I wasn't all that impressed with Black Panther, to be honest."

At publishing time, Justice Jackson amended her dissenting opinion to include an exclamation mark so everyone would know how adamant she was.

---

The exclamation bit got me, as it's almost a meme at this point for the judge in the opinion I quoted.

Almost every "liberal" I know thinks the ballroom is a good idea. Currently receptions are done in tents, which are an insane cost since security has to be re-done every time. A permanent structure is a great idea.

"Liberals" are objecting for two reasons...

First, he shouldn't have torn down the existing structure without consulting the historical society. This isn't Trump's ballroom, it is America's ballroom and Trump won't be president forever.

Second, Trump does think and has always thought that rules don't apply to him. He is an ends justify the means guy, and unfortunately he believes that his opinion and only his opinion is the "ends." I believe that the ballroom idea would have been approved by Congress and the project would have happened. But by ignoring the procedure and taking private donations Trump now will pay those donations back tenfold with federal funds, pardons, and ending investigations... just like he always does. That is why there is a process for doing stuff like this and why private donations are bad. In Trump's world, Trump now owes those donors.

The White house is America's house. It wasn't his to tear down. It was America's choice to tear it down.

knoxtom said:

---

Almost every "liberal" I know thinks the ballroom is a good idea. Currently receptions are done in tents, which are an insane cost since security has to be re-done every time. A permanent structure is a great idea.

"Liberals" are objecting for two reasons...

First, he shouldn't have torn down the existing structure without consulting the historical society. This isn't Trump's ballroom, it is America's ballroom and Trump won't be president forever.

Second, Trump does think and has always thought that rules don't apply to him. He is an ends justify the means guy, and unfortunately he believes that his opinion and only his opinion is the "ends." I believe that the ballroom idea would have been approved by Congress and the project would have happened. But by ignoring the procedure and taking private donations Trump now will pay those donations back tenfold with federal funds, pardons, and ending investigations... just like he always does. That is why there is a process for doing stuff like this and why private donations are bad. In Trump's world, Trump now owes those donors.

The White house is America's house. It wasn't his to tear down. It was America's choice to tear it down.

---

First, the The National Capital Planning Commission just gave it final approval

Second: Just stop.

He tore down offices, not the Lincoln Bedroom. None of you even knew the East wing existed until this.

The only reason you people are objecting is that you simply knee jerk object anything he does because your TDS has reached terminal stage.

If he saved a child from drowning in the ocean you'd object on the rationale that he was starving the poor innocent sharks

The ball room is going to be built and your tears will stop nothing

That's just a silly broad brush take. Just because Trump does something doesn't mean it's legal. Same with Biden, Obama, etc. Just because they write an executive order doesn't mean they have the actual authority to do what they ordered. I'm with you on not doing the knee-jerk reaction everything Trump does, but the same should be true when a judge rules against him. Each case is different and should be judged on the merits.

Even the most honest Trump supporter knows he intentionally pushes limits, sometimes over the line, and dares people to tell him no. That's how it's been his entire life.

In this case it doesn't look like he followed the process and unlike some of the immigration and ICE rulings we've seen from obviously biased federal judges there's not really an indication this judge has a grudge out against him.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

That's just a silly broad brush take. Just because Trump does something doesn't mean it's legal. Same with Biden, Obama, etc. Just because they write an executive order doesn't mean they have the actual authority to do what they ordered. I'm with you on not doing the knee-jerk reaction everything Trump does, but the same should be true when a judge rules against him. Each case is different and should be judged on the merits.

Even the most honest Trump supporter knows he intentionally pushes limits, sometimes over the line, and dares people to tell him no. That's how it's been his entire life.

In this case it doesn't look like he followed the process and unlike some of the immigration and ICE rulings we've seen from obviously biased federal judges there's not really an indication this judge has a grudge out against him.

---

Literally just got final approval from Congress's appointed board for DC federal building projects. And please stop pretending you'd hold any Democrat to these standards we're all tired of it. This pure leftist TDS whining and crying about a project everyone knows needed to happen because it will have Trumps name on it and they just can't stand it