IMG_9445

CHUCK SCHUMER CONTINUES TO “LIE” AND “GASLIGHT” THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE TRUTH IS THE BALLROOM IS “NOT” A TAXPAYER FUNDED PROJECT!!! Schumer stated... Donald Trump has decided to focus on a taxpayer-funded, gold-plated ballroom instead of focusing on these important national security issues, like funding DHS!!! No, the White House ballroom project is not a taxpayer-funded project, despite Chuck Schumer repeatedly claiming otherwise. The project involves adding a large ballroom (estimates around 90,000 square feet, with costs cited from ~$200 million up to $400 million in recent reports) to the White House grounds, including possible underground security/Secret Service infrastructure. It has involved demolition work on the East Wing and faces lawsuits from preservation groups over historic preservation and congressional approval requirements. Funding Claims vs. Reality • Trump and White House position: President Trump and White House officials (including press secretary Karoline Leavitt) have stated multiple times that the ballroom is privately funded by Trump personally and other private donors. They have explicitly said it will cost taxpayers nothing and is not using federal appropriations or cuts from programs like those targeted by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Donations have been routed through a nonprofit (e.g., the Trust for the National Mall), with some donors listed but others allowed to remain anonymous. • Schumer’s claims: Schumer has described it as a “taxpayer-funded, gold-plated ballroom,” accused it of coming from cuts to services for Americans, questioned where the money came from (implying no congressional appropriation), and contrasted it with priorities like funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Secret Service. He has called it unnecessary ego-driven spending and opposed any federal role. These attacks from Schumer date back to at least mid-2025 and continue into recent Senate floor remarks (as of April 28, 2026). Critics, including some conservative voices, have accused him of misleading or lying by ignoring the private funding statements. Recent Developments and Republican Split After a security incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner (an alleged attempt involving a gunman), some Republicans (e.g., Sens. Lindsey Graham, Katie Britt, Eric Schmitt) proposed legislation for up to $400 million in federal funding (or offset by fees) specifically for construction and enhanced security infrastructure like a Secret Service annex. They argue a secure on-site facility for large events serves national security and that private donations could cover furnishings instead. However: • Other Republicans (e.g., Sen. Rick Scott) oppose using taxpayer money amid high national debt and argue it should stay private. • The White House had previously stuck to the private funding line and has not clearly endorsed shifting to full taxpayer support in all reports. • Democrats, including Schumer, uniformly oppose it and say security needs are better met by funding DHS/Secret Service directly, not a “luxury ballroom.” The project has also hit legal and procedural hurdles (e.g., lawsuits, questions about congressional authorization for changes to White House grounds), with construction ongoing but delayed or contested. Bottom Line The core project was announced and advanced as privately funded, not a congressional appropriation from general taxpayer revenues. Schumer’s rhetoric frames it as taxpayer-funded waste to criticize Trump’s priorities, especially when contrasting it with DHS funding fights. Recent GOP proposals introduce the possibility of federal money for security-related aspects, but that remains debated and unpassed—not the original plan. This is classic partisan framing: Schumer highlights “taxpayer money” for political attack, while the administration emphasizes private donors. The exact mix could shift if Congress acts on new bills, but as designed and repeatedly stated by the White House, it is not taxpayer-funded. Independent verification of specific donation amounts is limited due to nonprofit channeling and anonymity options, which has drawn ethics scrutiny from some watchdogs.