S4 E36 - White House Ballroom: How the Media Built Another False Crisis

When the British burned the White House in 1814, it was an act of war.
 When Donald Trump builds a ballroom in 2025, it’s treated like one.

This episode of The Tenth Man dismantles the media hysteria over the so-called “White House demolition.”
You’ll hear how every administration has rebuilt, remodeled, or re-imagined that house — and why this one practical addition triggers so much panic.

We look at the double standards, the real-world need for a secure event hall, and the left’s strange obsession with controlling how other people spend their own money.
Because in Washington, outrage isn’t about architecture — it’s about ownership.

Listen now for common sense, history, and a little humor from The Tenth Man.

Commentary on trending issues brought to you with a moderate perspective.

Transcript

0:11

In 1814, the British burned the White House to the ground. Now Donald Trump's doing something just as bad, building a ballroom. Building improvements are a threat to democracy today. On the 10th Man, 200 years ago, the British burned the White House. This week, the press says Trump's doing something just as bad. He's building a ballroom. The East Wing gone. The residents untouched, the outrage manufactured. It's privately funded, built for security, and large enough to host an inauguration indoors, so naturally the media call it an ego trip. A vinyl tent is elegant. A permanent hall is tyranny. When Obama builds it's legacy, when Trump builds, its blasphemy. Apparently drywall now threatens democracy. Maybe the real scandal isn't that he's building too much, but that he's doing it right. Let's fix a basic misunderstanding. People confuse the White House brand with a White House building. Disney's Cinderella Castle is the brand. The gift shop is not. Likewise the residence, the North facade everyone photographs, is the brand. And no one is touching that. The East Wing, that's backstage. Offices, corridors storage, most visitors couldn't find it with a map and no one identifies it with the White House. So when critics gasp that the ballroom dwarfs the residents. They're comparing the castle to the gift shop and calling it blasphemy. The East Room, the White House's largest ceremonial hall hosts most state dinners, press conferences, and medal ceremonies. It's small by modern standards, but big enough for those events. And it's less than half the size of Buckingham Palace's ballroom. So when dignitaries crowd shoulder to shoulder and the orchestra's wedged in behind the curtains, it's not really very grand. It's more gridlock. Critics complain that the new ballroom overshadows the living quarters. So what. Out where I live, people put up pole barns big enough to hold all the toys, the boat, the tractor, the snowmobiles, the quad. While the house can be a double wide. The point isn't what looks bigger, it's what does the job. The White House is where the work of a nation happens and the workspace ought to match the mission. Before we act like the place was carved in stone, Well, maybe it is, but remember, the White House has never been static. President Truman gutted it down to the shell. FDR built the east wing. Every generation added wiring, air conditioning, press facilities, and earlier presidents could expand outward. Today we can't. Yeah, real estate just ran out. Demolition is necessary, and that's just geometry. And that brings us to the double standard, the part of every Washington story where outrage gets selective. They laughed at obscene statues of Trump and Jeffrey Epstein in the Capitol, but a ballroom is undignified. They mocked Nancy Reagan's china also privately donated. Yet they praise Obama's publicly funded Chicago Center. If Trump pays for it himself with donor money, it's buying influence. If taxpayers pay its investment in democracy, heads they win. Tails, he loses. And if Trump had asked permission,'cause that's one thing they're complaining about, what would've happened then? He'd still be waiting on committee number 15 and the outrage would still be there and Washington just idolizes process, but it kind of fears actual completion. If episodes like this are the antidote you need, then subscribe and tell a friend who still trusts headlines over history. Let me ask you now to like, subscribe and click the bell because logic and humor still beat outrage. If this episode is making you smirk or think, then please like and share. Someone out there still believes the British burned it again. Now while that noise hides the real question, why build it at all? And the answer isn't politics or ego, it's practical. For decades, the White House has hosted its largest events under temporary tents on the South Lawn. Everyone knows the routine. They're expensive. It's weather prone, it's labor intensive, and let's talk about some other things that really matter. Even the most luxurious tent is still a vinyl box, pretending to be a ballroom. They use porta Johns, climate control is uneven. Air gets stale, and Washington humidity always wins. Guests fan their programs while condensation forms on the glasses and the acoustics. There's no acoustics. There's no echo. The problem is sound intrusion, outside noise, leaks in traffic, construction, rain on the roof. A state dinner shouldn't have to pause for a passing motorcycle. A permanent hall, on the other hand, provides controlled climate, true sound, isolation, and dignity that doesn't sag in the weather. With a permanent ballroom, we could host dinners indoors any time without checking the weather forecast. And every time a tent goes up, the SE service has to start from zero on security, new perimeters, routes, screening zones. And each structure creates a fresh vulnerability. A permanent reinforced ballroom can be secured once and then monitored continuously, and that's not luxury. It's logic. You harden the space and this one will have bulletproof windows, and you stop gambling with every guest lists. And diplomacy runs on timing. Right now, a president can't say let's host them next week because the venue doesn't exist until the rental trucks arrive. That kills any ad hoc events, any last minute summits, briefings, memorials, or celebrations. A standing venue restores flexibility, flip on the lights, and America can welcome guests tomorrow morning without waiting for the tent company. And that's a huge difference. This new ballroom isn't about grandeur, it's about readiness and protection. It gives the White House a permanent climate controlled, secure space for any official occasion. Even an indoor presidential inauguration of conditions or credible threats ever demanded. It in an age of multiple assassination attempts, that's not extravagance, it's prudence. A superpower shouldn't need a weather forecast or a sniper report to inaugurate its leader safely. Of course, when practicality fails, critics reach for the oldest weapon of all money. Who's paying for this? They ask as if that were the scandal. If taxpayers fund it, it's waste. If donors fund it, it's influence. The government will own the ballroom. Future presidents will use it. That's called a public asset paid for by private generosity. Meanwhile, look at California, where Gavin Newsom is planning a presidential bid. Their capital renovation tops a billion, a billion and a half or more. In taxpayer money, that's just one state. A few months ago you saw the treasury department chastised because they spent billions on their own remodel. Taxpayer money, and Obama's library is eating public park land along with public funds, not a peep from the media. Apparently outrage is not about money. It's about who the builder is. And remember those reporters who scolded Nancy Reagan over the China, which was donated, but then laughed at the Epstein and Trump effigies. They're not really guarding decorum. They're guarding a narrative, And that naturally raises another question. Why demolish the East Wing? After all, isn't that historic? What's special about the East Wing? Nothing. Well, actually it is special. It's dedicated to the first lady in her staff. But Melania Trump never used her office there. Hillary Clinton famously refused to, it was a headline in 1993. If she'd become president, she had probably have been famous for tearing it down as a symbol of the patriarchy and then been praised for her modern attitudes. As we said earlier, real estate eventually runs out. The White House hit that limit decades ago. If you want a permanent, secure, adequately sized venue, you replace something and the East Wing isn't on brand. Maybe someday we'll need a new presidential residence for now, this ballroom is the perfect addition. It gives statecraft a proper room and lets the house be a home. If the ballroom dwarfs the residence, maybe the residence is too small for modern presidential life. And let's address the buzzword of the week that Trump is remaking the White House in his own image. Well, yeah. Leadership always leaves fingerprints, and he does live there after all. And Jefferson sketched Truman rebuilt. FDR added. Every president imposes order on chaos and his own version of order. The difference here is Trump won't even get to use it. Completion of the ballroom comes after his term. So if he's doing it for his ego, it's a rather delayed one. Critics act as if leaving a mark as narcissism, but if the founders thought that way, we'd still be meeting under tents, period. Everything would be a tent. But when future presidents, many of them Democrats now denouncing it, host their galas there, they'll call it tradition. And that's fine. Tradition is what common sense is called a generation later. A And finally, let's sum up the pattern we've all come to expect. The outrage template. If he builds his vain. If he doesn't, he's negligent. And if it works, it's undemocratic. The usual non journalism reflex. The British destroyed the White House with fire. Today's critics attack it with spin and both just hate a house that stands. The residence the brand, the Cinderella Castle remains. The East Wing, the backstage area makes room for a ballroom fit for a modern superpower. Large enough to host an inauguration indoors, secure enough to protect the guests who attend. That's not an ego trip. That's engineering with common sense. Trump isn't desecrating democracy. He's solving a logistical problem the capital has rented its way around for decades, and if that feels like heresy, it's only because Washington has confused symbols with sanity. You've been listening to the 10th Man, breaking the Echo Chamber with facts, history and a sense of proportion. I.