&imwidth=800&imheight=600&format=webp&quality=medium)
The $250M ballroom project at the White House, funded by wealthy donors and corporations, raises concerns of potential ethics violations and ‘pay-to-play’ schemes
Construction has started on the White House's new $250 million ballroom, a lavish 90,000 square-foot venue that will replace portions of the East Wing. While the project is officially being funded by private donors, President Trump has said he will personally cover a significant part of the cost, with some donors reportedly willing to contribute up to $20 million each. Legal experts are raising alarms over the potential ethical implications of such funding, with critics fearing it could open the door for donors to gain special access to the administration.
Richard Painter, who served as the Bush White House's chief ethics lawyer, called the project an ‘ethics nightmare’, suggesting it could lead to undue influence from corporations seeking government favours. Among those attending a recent White House donor dinner were executives from major companies such as Blackstone, OpenAI, Microsoft, Amazon, and Google, as well as prominent figures like the Glazer family, owners of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Manchester United. Trump commented that some attendees had suggested donations of up to $25 million, which he said he would gladly accept.
Also Read: 'We’ll see what happens...': Trump reveals REAL reason why he cancelled Budapest meeting with Putin
Although the full list of donors has yet to be disclosed, one contributor has been revealed: YouTube, which is contributing $22 million as part of a settlement agreement regarding Trump's suspended account following the January 6th Capitol attack. The donations are being channeled through the Trust for the National Mall, a non-profit organization that collaborates with the National Park Service to fund various White House and national mall projects.
Trump and his administration argue that the ballroom will benefit future administrations and save taxpayer money, as it replaces the temporary tents often used for large-scale events. However, critics worry that the new venue could facilitate political fundraising in ways that previous, smaller facilities did not. Despite the controversy, proving any ethical violations is likely to be difficult.