President Donald Trump has said private donors will fund the White House ballroom project, but records cited by The Washington Post reportedly show a higher cost estimate and substantial public spending.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom project could cost as much as $600 million, with more than half of the funding coming from taxpayers, according to a report citing construction records and administration documents.
Trump had previously said the project would cost up to $400 million and insisted that private donors, including himself, would pay for the new building. But The Washington Post reported Tuesday that a detailed estimate prepared for the administration by Clark Construction placed the cost at $600 million.
The project began last year after Trump moved to demolish the historic East Wing of the White House without first consulting Congress, according to the report. The ballroom is one of several efforts by the president to reshape parts of Washington during his second term.
The White House pushed back on the report Tuesday, saying Trump and private donors are covering most of the cost.
“President Trump and generous American patriots are funding the ballroom to the tune of approximately $400 million, which will be a secure and appropriate venue for Presidents for generations to come,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle said in a statement to AFP.
Ingle also linked the project to presidential security, arguing that an alleged plot to attack the White House during a cage fight attended by Trump and other senior officials over the weekend showed why the construction was needed.
The alleged plot “proves exactly why the East Wing Modernization Project is severely needed for large scale events,” Ingle wrote on X.
Ingle said the ballroom project is “inextricably tied” to presidential security and other security assets. Trump has said the project will include drone ports on the roof and a hospital in the basement.
The Post reported that a summary prepared for the White House in March estimated the project at $600 million, with $293 million expected from “private sources.” That was before Trump told reporters later that month the project would cost up to $400 million and would not use taxpayer money.
When Trump made those March comments, the administration had already approved more than a dozen payments of public funds to Clark Construction totaling tens of millions of dollars, the Post reported, citing a contractor invoice log obtained by the newspaper.
Trump initially floated the ballroom project with an estimated price tag of $200 million. He later raised the estimate to $400 million while continuing to say taxpayers would not fund it.
“This is a gift to the United States of America,” Trump said last month while touring the construction site with reporters as hammers and buzz saws could be heard in the background.
“This is all my money and donors’ money. This is tax free,” Trump said.
Clark Construction told The Washington Post that details of the project are confidential.
The ballroom has drawn criticism from Democrats, who have cited the gilded design and other costly renovation projects in Washington as evidence that Trump is out of touch with Americans facing high living costs.
Republicans are also concerned that voter anxiety over prices, including rising fuel costs linked to the Iran war, could affect the November midterm elections.
The project has also led to a court fight. A judge ruled in March that above-ground construction needed to stop, though that ruling was put on hold while an appeals court considers the case.
The Trump administration has argued that security concerns surrounding large White House events increased after a man with a gun attempted to break into the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner Trump attended in April.
The report leaves unresolved how much of the final project cost will be covered by private donations and how much will be paid by taxpayers, but records cited by the Post suggest the total price may be substantially higher than Trump’s public estimates.
Original article
Comments