There’s a hidden problem with President Donald Trump’s renovation projects that extends beyond the preservation of history and high costs.
Read more Whistleblower reveals the real goal of Trump’s ‘revenge’ task force
Writing Thursday, lawyer Lindsay Zimliki, who works for Democracy Defenders Act, penned a column for “The Contrarian” Substack, flagging that many lawsuits are fighting against the White House’s claims that the president has absolute power over all of these projects.
“And the precedents established in these seemingly narrow disputes have consequences far beyond the projects at issue,” she explained. “A victory for the president in one of these cases would strengthen his hand the next time he or his administration tests the bounds of executive power, where the stakes for our democracy could be far greater.”
The White House ballroom lawsuit alleges that a president can’t start a major construction project on federal property without congressional approval or at the very least, review by independent federal agencies that govern projects, she explained.
The lower court decision drew the line at the bunker vs. the ballroom. After being rushed to the presidential bunker in 2020, when he returned to the White House, Trump sought to renovate it completely, adding his ballroom on top. The court said that Trump could continue construction on the bunker, but not the ballroom. While the case works its way through the courts, the ballroom is on hold. Trump has appealed this to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the pause was “extraordinary and unlawful.” His case alleged that stopping construction put him in danger.
Read more Treasury chief ‘more involved’ in war than defense secretary: Trump official
“The ruling could have significant consequences if, for instance, the president invokes national security concerns as a basis for interfering in elections,” said Zimliki, listing off examples. “The president has already invoked national security to justify expanding federal and presidential authority over elections, including proposals to seize voting equipment (after the 2020 election), federal efforts to investigate state election systems (2026, when he gave a prime-time address claiming to have declassified intelligence that showed vulnerabilities in American elections and foreign interference, and when he used the national security narrative to justify his demand for sweeping election-law changes like the SAVE Act), and executive orders.”
The Kennedy Center lawsuits similarly deals with Trump appointing his own allies to the board and then having his appointees “take voting rights away from ex officio members.” The president is responsible for more than 80 independent federal commissions, regulatory and collegial boards and commissions that a president gets to appoint people to. Some are full-time and major, while others are merely part-time. There are hundreds of Senate-confirmed appointments.
So, Trump’s efforts to take over these boards extend beyond putting his name on the Kennedy Center. The district court ruled that the Kennedy Center was established by Congress and Trump remaking the board, closing the Center and renaming it “lacked statutory authority.” The board has ignored the court’s ruling and voted again to put his name on the building and close operations.
“The stakes in these cases extend far beyond a ballroom or a cultural institution. They may help define whether a president can use control over federal entities, national-security justifications, or other asserted executive powers to circumvent limits Congress has imposed,” Zimliki closed.
Read more ‘Doddering octogenarian’ Trump ‘fooled’ into new disaster: conservative
