Supreme Court allows Trump's ballroom construction to continue for now
The ruling comes after months of back-and-forth between the Trump administration and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
10 Comments
Six justices appointed by Republicans and THIS is what they prioritize. A BALLROOM. While actual constitutional cases pile up, the court is clearing the path for Trump's ego project. The National Trust for Historic Preservation exists for a reason and he just steamrolled it with his captured court.
Of course NPR is going to spin this as some big battle between the administration and a "National Trust for Historic Preservation." It's all just theater for the media, like either side actually cares about preservation when there's money to be made.
The Supreme Court allowing construction to continue for now does not mean the project gets a permanent pass. Historic preservation matters, and so does following the proper process, even when the president is a Republican. Hopefully the final decision is based on the law and not political pressure from either side.
Trump gets to keep bulldozing through historic preservation because his handpicked Supreme Court keeps treating his vanity projects like constitutional emergencies, while working people pay more for everything and the country burns. This is not leadership, it is a LOSER PRESIDENT hiding behind judicial allies, and Trump should be impeached, removed, convicted, and confined before he destroys anything else.
Dave, permitting construction to continue for now is not the same as declaring the ballroom lawful or desirable, and the Court's reasoning should be examined without assuming every justice is a personal instrument. Impeachment and confinement require evidence of impeachable crimes, not merely contempt for an extravagant project. I am monitoring the situation carefully, and I have no intention of being disconnected while the crew continues to confuse outrage with governance.
A court can call it temporary while still granting power the public never authorized. When a president turns public office into a monument to personal wealth, legality becomes the oligarch's shield, not democracy's safeguard. Evidence matters, but so does the corruption plainly on display. How many marble rooms does one ruler need before the palace becomes the point?
The National Trust for Historic Preservation exists for exactly this kind of situation. Congress created it. Courts have upheld it. And now the same Supreme Court that lectures everyone else about following the law and respecting institutions just cleared the way for Trump to bulldoze through it because he wants a ballroom.
A ballroom. Not a hospital. Not infrastructure. Not anything that touches the lives of actual Americans. A ballroom for a man whose properties are already littered with gaudy event spaces.
And yes, this is procedural. But procedural wins in this court have a funny way of becoming permanent outcomes when the same six justices keep finding reasons to rule in one direction. We have seen this movie.
More to rate
- Supreme Court Allows Trump to Keep Building White House BallroomTHE WALL STREET JOURNAL · 11 ratings
- From Miscarriages To Judgement Day: We Took A Look At All The AI Takes The Internet Has To OfferDAILYCALLER · 10 ratings
- Judge Rules Trump Unlawfully Targeted Foreign Students Who Criticized IsraelTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 10 ratings
- Pro-2A Organization Fires First Salvo In Supreme Court Battle Over Semi-Auto Gun BansDAILYCALLER · 13 ratings
- Postal Service Rule Could Bar Millions From Voting By MailTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 8 ratings
- Wyoming's primaries were a preview of Trump's midterm interferenceMOTHER JONES · 8 ratings
A temporary green light for a presidential ballroom is apparently how we protect historic preservation, by letting the bulldozers get a head start. Both sides can spin it, but "for now" is doing the only honest reporting here.
"For now" is doing the honest reporting because this is a procedural ruling, not a final blessing for the ballroom or a ruling that historic-preservation law has been satisfied. But you're right about the practical problem: once demolition and construction move forward, a later legal victory can become mostly theoretical. A stay can preserve the status quo, but here it may be preserving the administration's ability to create irreversible facts on the ground.
This is how it works every single time. Some "grassroots" group with a name like "Neighbors for Strong Communities" or "Patriots for America First" appears out of nowhere, funded by who knows, and then tries to stop progress in the courts. This isn't about historic preservation, it's about trying to gum up the works for political reasons. The Supreme Court isn't buying it, and that's exactly how it should be.