Forgot Your Password?

New to The Nation? Subscribe

Print subscriber? Activate your online access

.nation-small__b{fill:#fff;}

Trump’s Ballroom Isn’t Just a Farce Anymore—It’s a Threat

In this week’s Elie v. US, our justice correspondent explains how the ballroom could gut key environmental protections. Plus, the heartbreak of Jason Arday.

I’m sorry, but we have to talk about the fucking ballroom. I assure you, I am not happy about this. The world is on fire, but I, and now you, need to devote actual mental energy to Donald Trump’s White House play space.

A brief recap for those blissfully unaware of how truly stupid this country has become. Trump tore down the East Wing of the White House without prior authorization from any of the relevant committees. In its place, he plans to erect a gilded ballroom worthy of his fatuous regime. He claims that the ballroom will include an underground security bunker.

The ballroom is flatly illegal. The White House is not Trump’s personal property, and it lies on federal land. Construction is not allowed on federal lands without explicit authorization from Congress, which Trump doesn’t have.

Lower courts have blocked construction of the above-ground portions of the project, but now Trump has appealed those rulings to the Supreme Court.

I was prepared to roll my eyes at the whole thing, waiting for the inevitable day when a new Democratic president destroys whatever Trump is able to build. But Ian Millhisier actually read the appeal and put the fear of God in me. Trump’s case could allow the Supreme Court to gut a key environmental protection, which could then allow Trump and the Republicans to trample all over national parks, national monuments, endangered habitats, and even endangered species.

The issue has to do with what’s known as standing, which is the legal jargon for the right to sue. Trump’s ballroom construction was stopped thanks to a lawsuit from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The group sued under a long-standing principle that allows lawsuits from people who intend to “visit” a site and will find it “less attractive” if alterations proposed by the government or the people running it are allowed to proceed.

It might sound thin, but this is an important way for the public to protect and preserve public parks and monuments. This kind of standing allows regular people to protect things and places that should belong to everybody.

Trump’s appeal directly challenges this kind of standing. If he’s successful, it will strip the public of a key way to enforce historical preservation and environmental protection laws. Trump could, quite literally, emboss his face on Mount Rushmore or turn Yellowstone into a golf course if this kind of standing is not upheld.

The Republicans running the Supreme Court have shown a deep antipathy toward both environmental protection and the ability of citizens to sue to stop the government.

Trump’s ballroom could easily turn into a national environmental disaster. And, as with everything the Trump administration does, the Supreme Court........

© The Nation