‘Trump Ballroom Corruption’: Jim McGovernQuestions Trump’s Secret $400 Million BallroomFunding

I love what my Republican friends talk about, that they need to cut humanitarian aid programs, food aid programs, because they're worried about the debt. But nobody on the other side said a word when we passed a tax cut bill that benefited multimillionaires and billionaires that added trillions to the debt. And last week, the week before last, we added another $70 billion to the $100 billion that ICE and CBP already have. None of it is offset. All of it goes, no one says a word about that, but when it comes to programs to feed hungry people, all of a sudden, you know, oh, we've got to tighten our belts. Let me, I want to begin with, I have a few questions. I'll try to be quick here. Let me, since you're all appropriators, this is a question that I get asked a lot during the break by my constituents. In fact, a gentleman on the airplane down here today asked me about this, and that's the president's ballroom. You know, his lavish ballroom, which he said on multiple occasions, would be 100% privately funded. I mean, he said that a million times. 100% privately funded. So let me just ask you yes, no, or maybe. Do you support using taxpayer dollars to fund President Trump's ballroom, Ms. Kaptur? Do you support using taxpayer funding to fund the ballroom? No, Mr. Ranking Member. I do not. Thank you. Ms. Frankel? No. Mr. Diaz-Balart? There is no funding for any ballroom in my appropriation bill, just so I know, because it deals with foreign policy. I'll note there's no funding in the energy and water bill as well. So let me let both of you, Mr. Diaz-Balart and Clouden, on something. You're appropriators, and I'm surprised you don't know this, but are you aware that President Trump and his team have transferred roughly $400 million in taxpayer dollars that Congress appropriated to the Secret Service and put into the White House Repair and Restoration account in order to make, quote, security upgrades as part of the ballroom construction project? When you say there's no taxpayer funds going to this, are you aware that, well, I mean, but you're appropriated. I mean, you're on the full committee as well. Are you aware that taxpayer dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars are going to this ballroom? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Well, I'm questioning you, You don't have to get permission from the chair. Yeah. So I am aware that we have a pretty high-risk security situation. We have a president who's now suffered. And so you support that? I support making sure that the president of the United States is safe, but I have not seen any details. Well, I will provide you the details. Look forward to it. OMB has provided us all the monies where there were transfers. I mean, In fact, I can tell you right now that a transfer of $340.8 million in taxpayer dollars to the ballroom construction on June 12, 2026, a second transfer of $10.75 million in taxpayer dollars to the ballroom construction also on June 12, a third transfer on June 15 of $45 million in taxpayer dollars again to the ballroom construction. I have the documents from the Office of Management and Budget right here. So it's stunning to me that, as appropriators, that you're unaware of the transfers. But here's my question. If I run the Appropriations Committee, you know, I mean, and I work to get money appropriated for X or for Y, I would want to make sure that the executive branch, whether it's a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, respected the will of Congress, that actually did what appropriators said they would do. So, I mean, this is an end-run, this is like an end-run around Congress. Is that something you support? And if not, what can the Appropriations Committee do to stop it? I will note, I took a tour of the White House defense apparatus with the Secret Service recently. I would wonder if you've taken that same tour. I don't think they'll let me on the White House grounds. I mean, you know, with this president, I don't think. But the point of the matter is, if you support... But have you ever taken that tour? Have you ever taken that tour? Have you ever taken that tour? Yeah, I have taken the tour, yeah. Not the White House tour of the security defense apparatus. I had the chance to talk to the Secret Service. And you know when we visit the White House right now, the visitors to the White House go through tents, basically. They stand out in the open. When we hold state dinners, it's basically on lawn. They could have just been rained under. And the ballroom portion. there's a there's a security component to the ballroom that you should probably look into and certain things of course we can't talk about why don't you appropriate the funding why do you allow the administration to do an end run around this I mean you have appropriation bills coming up right now you can fund hundreds of millions of dollars as you see fit why not just do it can I address that thank you sir look valid question but it is a little rich Because I do remember when the previous administration, there were hundreds of billions of dollars that were spent by then President Biden's administration that were neither appropriated nor authorized. And then it went to the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of the United States said it was unconstitutional. By the way, I don't remember the outrage by some of our Democratic colleagues about that taking place. now having said that having no no no what was unconstitutional was a time when the democrats did not speak out when president biden did it now let me well if you don't want me to answer it then i get that because you don't like the answer but that is my question is are you saying that this money that the president is spending which was not authorized or appropriated for this use is unconstitutional if not then do you approve of this money being spent on the ballroom it's a simple question, not a trick question. No, if I may, what I'm saying is that we are here, we have appropriation bills in front of you. We have two appropriation bills. By the way, none of these two bills deal with that specific issue. But again, it's a little rich when I hear all of a sudden a wake up that money that was not appropriated should or should not be appropriated when the previous administration did so. And the Supreme Court of the United States said that it was wrong, and I do not remember. I may be wrong, because maybe you can get me some of your quotes demanding accountability to the President. You support taxpayer funding for this ballroom. I support... They tried to put it in the reconciliation bill, but it became so unpopular that they removed it. I support these two appropriation bills that are in front of you right now, again, neither of which have that issue. I will put you both down as saying that you support... No, no, I'm saying what I'm saying, Mr. Rankin. You don't support that money. No. What I am saying is I support these appropriation bills in front of you. None of these. Is it maybe? I don't know. No? I mean, anyway. Well, look, you don't like the answer, and you sure were not complaining when the previous administration did a lot more egregious than what you're claiming is happening today. I'm not defending this president's unauthorized transfer of funds to do this. So let me ask, Mr. Cloud, you have submitted your amendment to permanently block the federal government from issuing a central bank digital currency 38 times to this Congress. You're welcome. And each and every one of those times, the Rules Committee, controlled by your party, has blocked your amendment from being made in order. So I see that you have filed your amendment for a 39th time today before our committee. My question is, if Republicans block your amendment for the 39th time, Will you vote against the rule? Because the question is, why would you continue to vote for rules that block your own amendments from getting votes? Your party's in the majority. Let me just, one final question for Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yeah, I'm looking over the National Security Department of State and related programs appropriations bill, and I'll be honest with you, it does not reflect my values, and I think it weakens the United States. I think gutting programs that actually help deal with humanitarian crises is a bad thing for the United States, undercuts our national security. And I think national security needs to be thought of in terms that is not just about our military might, but about the good stuff that we do. And I also am deeply troubled by the de-emphasis of human rights by this administration and by, quite frankly, Congress. I mean, the president went to China recently and met with President Xi. I was stunned that human rights was not a priority on their agenda and not part of the readout of his statement. I think President Xi is a horrific dictator that is abusing the Chinese people, that anybody who disagrees with him is put in jail. We have tons of political prisoners. And I would like to think that if any country in the world was out there fighting for these people, it would be the United States. But my question to you is the Trump administration is relying on the U.N. over and over for their priorities as the main channel for humanitarian aid, to legitimize the Gaza ceasefire, for new security arrangements in Haiti, and now to get nuclear weapons inspectors back into Iran. That's what the Trump administration is relying on the U.N. Yet this committee isn't funding the U.N. That just seems illogical. It's counterproductive. And it makes us look like a cowardly cheapskate in the eyes of the world. The U.S. should lead, and it is beneath us to be a freeloader. So my question is, why isn't this committee funding the U.N. to meet both the president's priorities, what the president has said he wants the U.N. to do, and Congress's on human rights, on disease prevention, on conflict prevention, and other matters? Thank you. Yeah, you're right that we do cut a lot of funding for the, for example, the U.N. General Fund. We do, however, fund some key issues that the U.N. does. Now, we don't fund some things that, frankly, are just a waste of money. You mentioned human rights. I think you and I would probably agree on one thing, which is that the Human Rights Council, the UN, the UN Human Rights Council, is made up of among the worst human rights violators in the planet. And to continue to fund entities like that, which all they do is they take our money and then use that money to, frankly, you know, just go after the United States and our allies while being made up of the worst human rights violators in the world it's just not serious so while we're funding, again I go back to what I said at the beginning, we're funding key issues but we're not just spending money and throwing money away on wasteful issues. But the money doesn't go to those countries, it goes to the body, right? I mean it doesn't go to those countries and I'm just going to say this because I'm about to be gaveled down here you know, as a co-chair of the Human Rights, Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, named after Tom Lantos the only holocaust survivor to serve in congress it is stunning to me how our country has withdrawn from being a leader on human rights it is an afterthought and some of the president's closest allies are the worst human rights abusers uh in the world and i again it's really troubling and i think it it's it's one of those things that undercuts our overall national security and i'm being cut off so i yield back subscribe to one india and never miss an update download the one india app now