Democrats and the White House are, for once, on the same page.
As for congressional Republicans … that may be another story.
Last week, when the Senate GOP released their roughly $70 billion proposal to fund immigration enforcement through reconciliation, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee tucked $1 billion into the bill for “security adjustments and upgrades” related to the White House’s “East Wing Modernization Project.”
Senate Republicans argue that money is not for the ballroom, with a GOP spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee writing on social media that the bill “explicitly prohibits funds from going to non-security ‘ballroom’ elements.”
But inconveniently for Senate Republicans and that argument, the administration has embraced the measure as a tacit approval of President Donald Trump’s East Wing makeover — which of course includes the president’s long-touted new ballroom.
Democrats aren’t just likening the proposal to Congress blessing the “gilded boondoggle”; they’re arguing it’s tantamount to Congress funding the project.
“The authorization may be limited to $1 billion dollars for security,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told MS NOW. “But it could be misinterpreted as ratifying the entire structure, both architecturally and legally.”
Democrats are certainly saying that’s the case. And with a judge recently halting construction of the ballroom until Congress authorizes the project, the White House looks apt to argue the same.
Congress returns this week with the immigration enforcement reconciliation package set to be the first order of business. But with some Republican lawmakers already expressing unease about the idea of $1 billion for the East Wing, it’s unclear whether the provision will survive on Capitol Hill.
Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind. — who told MS NOW he supports the ballroom itself — said that “throwing a billion dollars at it, when the whole thing costs $400 million, it just kind of seems upside down.”
“I hope somebody really did their math on that before they just threw that number there,” Stutzman said.
A spokesperson for Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., told MS NOW in a statement that Fitzpatrick “has made clear that he does not support the inclusion of any language in the DHS funding bill pertaining to the ballroom, and he will be voting accordingly.”
And Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told The Hill in a statement that, “If the White House and Secret Service believe that they need money for construction beyond these private funds they’ve raised, I’m willing to hear them out.” But, he added, it’s “already being funded by private donations.”
Republicans have been carefully navigating questions about Trump’s ballroom by noting that the president plans to use private funds for its construction — after Trump tore down the East Wing without proper approval from Congress, The National Trust for Historic Preservation or the National Capital Planning Commission.
But that argument is falling apart faster than the East Wing itself as congressional Republicans seek $1 billion for security enhancements related to the ballroom.
Of course, some Republicans say a federally funded ballroom is appropriate, particularly given the president’s security needs.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., offered a bill to provide $400 million for the ballroom, including an underground component with “a lot of military stuff” and “a Secret Service annex.”
“Many people, I think, originally saw it as a vanity project that President Trump wanted to build this grand ballroom, as kind of a vanity project,” Graham told reporters in April. “I don’t see it that way, and I don’t think I ever did.”
Graham argued the presence of a secure meeting space in the East Wing would have prevented the alleged attempted assassination of Trump at last month’s White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.
While Republicans wrote a broad restriction barring funding for any non-security portion of the ballroom project, the bill doesn’t define those parameters, and the White House hasn’t said whether it views things like the room’s windows and doors as a security feature.
Trump himself has blurred the lines between the two, telling reporters last week that the ballroom will have bullet-proof windows “about six inches thick.”
“It’s going to be incredible,” Trump said. “It’s going to be — aside from being secure — I think it’s going to be the most beautiful ballroom ever built.”
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin sent top Republican lawmakers a letter last week acknowledging the bill doesn’t allow “non-security improvements at the White House.” But his spending outline provided little detail on what is off-limits.
The funds will “fulfill the USSS’s responsibility to provide security for both the above and below ground requirements of the East Wing Modernization Project, which will afford needed protection for the President, his family, and visitors, along with the below-ground security functions,” Mullin wrote in the letter.
Republicans are likely to face plenty of pressure from Democrats to rethink the idea of taxpayer money for the East Wing.
A recent Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found 56% of U.S. adults oppose the ballroom project, including 20% of Republicans.
Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., told MS NOW the ballroom project will be “an albatross around Republicans’ necks.”
Recommended
“This White House ballroom story has absolutely broken through to even ordinary citizens who just don’t typically pay attention to politics,” Boyle told MS NOW — adding that the ballroom will “probably be decorated like a cheap Atlantic City casino.”
Democrats running to flip competitive congressional districts across the country told MS NOW they see the $1 billion proposal as just another data point they can invoke to accuse the president and Republican Party writ large of being out of step with the needs of the American public.
“Asking for a billion dollar ballroom in this economy, I mean, it’s just not out of touch — it’s frankly insulting,” said Marlene Galan-Woods, a Democrat running in Arizona’s 1st district.
“While D.C. is dreaming up floor plans for a gala hall,” she added, “Arizonans here are staring at $6 gallon of gas and wondering how to cover rent, how to pay for groceries, how to buy their kids shoes.”
Brian Poindexter, the Democratic nominee in Ohio’s 7th district, told MS NOW, “We know what the ballroom is for; it’s for an audience of one. It’s for Trump, it’s for himself, and it’s at the expense of everybody else.”
And Bob Harvie, running to challenge Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania’s 1st district, said the $1 billion proposal is “just another sign of what people are sick and tired of in this country. They’re sick and tired of a government that doesn’t work for them.”
Voters, Harvie said, would “much rather have affordable health care. I think they’d much rather have fully funded schools. I think they’d much rather have job training programs.”
Democrats have several chances to put Republicans on record — if not block the ballroom security funding outright.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee expect to vote next week on the bill in a committee vote, which could include amendments from Democrats to defund the measure.
“We will certainly seek amendments that limit or even eliminate this $1 billion provision,” Blumenthal told MS NOW.
Democrats will then have additional chances to poke holes in the bill after the Judiciary Committee votes.
First, senators will debate behind closed doors which measures comply with reconciliation rules, a fight that will be settled by the Senate parliamentarian. Democrats will almost certainly fight against the funding in what is known as the “Byrd bath” process.
If the proposal survives the Byrd bath — and there’s clearly a budgetary impact for the provision — senators can offer virtually unlimited amendments on the measure in a marathon “vote-a-rama.”
A Senate Democratic aide told MS NOW to expect the Democratic affordability and anti-corruption message to be front and center as part of their proposed amendments.
But even if Senate Republicans muscle through the proposal — with ballroom funding and all — the reconciliation bill will still have to get through the House, where the margin is even tighter.
As Democrats pointed out, the ballroom has proven in polling that it’s a rare issue breaking through to voters — and Republicans are aware of that. With the GOP trying to keep its tenuous hold of the House and Senate, vulnerable Republicans may object to the money in a very public break with the president.
But whether Republicans ultimately approve the funding or not, Democrats plan to connect their counterparts to the funding proposal.
“Just flagging that now everyone gets an up or down vote on the ballroom!” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote on X when Grassley released the Judiciary Committee’s portion of the reconciliation bill.
Mychael Schnell contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
Jack Fitzpatrick covers Congress for MS NOW. He previously reported for Bloomberg Government, Morning Consult and National Journal. He has bachelor's and master's degrees from Arizona State University.