Editorial: Trump's ballroom vanity project, your bill

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Board, St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 7, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

President Donald Trump charged into this destructive crusade without a word to Congress, without a clear rationale for why he was doing it and, now, with a spiraling price tag for the American taxpayers.

No, we’re not referring to Trump’s ill-conceived war in Iran — though the description works pretty well there, too. We’re referring to his monstrosity of a planned White House ballroom, which is on track to devolve from a $200 million privately funded vanity project to a $400 million publicly funded security project.

As Missourians grit their teeth at astronomical fuel prices thanks to Trump’s unauthorized assault on Iran, they should ask why their junior U.S. senator, Eric Schmitt, is now trying to stick them with the bill for this unauthorized assault on the history and dignity of the White House.

Schmitt is co-sponsoring legislation to retroactively give Trump the permission he never bothered asking of Congress — along with public funds he said he wouldn’t need — for construction of his ballroom where the East Wing of White House used to be. The measure, co-sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-N.C., and Katie Britt, R-Ala., would appropriate $400 million toward a security-enhanced version of Trump’s original $200 million project.

The “security” part stems from last month’s assassination attempt as Trump attended the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the Washington Hilton.

In the years Trump has talked about wanting a “big beautiful ballroom” added to the White House, his focus has generally been about the alleged grandeur it would bring to an institution that, in his gold-leaf worldview, was apparently not grand enough already.

But as with his shifting rationales for the war in Iran — halting nuclear proliferation, stemming terrorism, prompting regime change, reopening oil markets, or whatever it is this week — he has now shifted the rationale for the ballroom to security.

“This event would never have happened with the Militarily Top Secret Ballroom currently under construction at the White House,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform the day after the attempted assassination. “It cannot be built fast enough!”

While no serious person argues against the need for iron-clad presidential security, further ensconcing the presidency away from public appearances raises its own issues. And they're not the only issues at play here.

Trump ordered the East Wing torn down and ballroom work started without any congressional approval, any deference to architectural or historical integrity nor any real public discussion. Which is why the project is currently being challenged in court.

And while Trump’s initial vow that it would be fully funded by donations was in itself problematic — no president in modern times has more shamelessly leveraged his office for personal gain than this one — suddenly attempting to foist a newly inflated price tag for an unauthorized project onto the public is worse.

Schmitt must know this, judging from his office’s misleading official news release about the legislation. Reading it, you wouldn’t even know that public funds are being sought.

But they are, as the bill’s language and Schmitt’s own public comments plainly confirm. In fact, Schmitt was quoted by The Hill as saying the private donations Trump has already raised “should be used for buying [fine] china and stuff like that” instead of for the project’s construction.

(Trump reportedly has raised more than $350 million from those private donors, by the way. That's a lot of china, courtesy of some of the world's deepest pockets — and a lot of presidential favors just waiting to be called in.)

Luckily, Schmitt’s giveaway to Trump’s ego appears to have little chance of passage. Even many of Schmitt’s fellow Senate Republicans (including senior Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley) are balking at using public funds for the project.

They should in fact be balking at the whole notion of a president just tearing down pieces of The People’s House and slapping on a vulgar monument to himself. But that would clearly be too much to ask of a Congress that can't even rouse itself to demand accountability for an illegal war.