It Is All A Lie

[Editorial]

But then again, everything he says is a lie. Do you remember the architectural drawings of the ballroom? Well, they were a lie, too! They made it look smaller than the actual design. Plus, nobody has inspected it!

There are no public records of design approval or code approvals (electrical permits, plumbing permits, mechanical/HVAC permits, or fire protection permits). There are no records at all—not even of the design!

The building falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, not the Washington, D.C., building department.

Trump’s Deranged Secret Ballroom Orders Are Leaked

The president believes the White House doesn’t need to follow standard safety procedures.

The Daily Beast

By Ewan Palmer

Sep 23, 2026

Donald Trump demanded that his $400 million White House ballroom be constructed in a way that would violate numerous health and fire safety codes, according to a report.

James McCrery, the architect Trump initially handpicked to build the mammoth vanity project, warned the president that his ballroom design plans posed serious health and safety risks in the weeks before he resigned from the project last October.

This included failing to provide sufficient fire exits for potentially hundreds of people to leave the building safely, as well as having no design plans in place to prevent a kitchen fire from rapidly spreading across the ballroom and other floors, The Washington Post reported.

The president is said to have dismissed McCrery’s concerns and claimed the White House did not need to follow traditional health and safety codes. “I am the code,” Trump said.

And now we see the actual scale of the building: 90,000 square feet, compared with the White House's approximately 55,000 square feet. That's almost twice the size of the White House itself!

And people are not happy. "It's a monster!" PBS News reported.

Donald Trump demanded that his $400 million White House ballroom be constructed in a way that would violate numerous health and fire safety codes, according to a report.

James McCrery, the architect Trump initially handpicked to build the mammoth vanity project, warned the president that his ballroom design plans posed serious health and safety risks in the weeks before he resigned from the project last October.

This included failing to provide sufficient fire exits for potentially hundreds of people to leave the building safely, as well as having no design plans in place to prevent a kitchen fire from rapidly spreading across the ballroom and other floors, The Washington Post reported.

The president is said to have dismissed McCrery’s concerns and claimed the White House did not need to follow traditional health and safety codes. “I am the code,” Trump said.

Then we have the article in the Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute wrote…

Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson join, dissenting.

 The President ordered the demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make way for a new, privately funded state ballroom in its place. Construction of the ballroom has proceeded apace for the better part of a year.

 That construction is likely unlawful. Pursuant to its plenary constitutional authority over the District of Columbia and federal property, Congress has explicitly prohibited the construction of any “building or structure . . . on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.” 40 U. S. C. §8106. The ballroom is a building or structure being erected on federal park grounds—President’s Park—in the District of Columbia. Yet Congress has not passed any law resembling “express authority” for the Executive’s construction of it.

Will Congress have the gumption to order the building torn down if it is found to be substandard or was constructed unlawfully?

What I think the minimum that needs to be done;

• Ordering an independent structural and fire-safety inspection.
• Reviewing whether the project complied with federal construction and building-code requirements.
• Investigating whether required permits and approvals were obtained.
• Determining whether the ballroom can legally and safely be occupied.
• Requiring modifications, restricting use, or potentially ordering removal of the addition.

The American taxpayer should not automatically inherit the financial burden of a privately funded presidential construction project if that project is later found to be unlawful. The costs should fall squarely on the shoulders of those who backed it!

[/Editorial]