With deadline looming tomorrow, Trump admin presents no argument that justifies SCOTUS allowing ballroom construction to continue during appeal; the high court's best action is no action at all

Demolition of East Wing of White House (AP, Politico)

On Aug. 14, President Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) for an emergency stay that would allow above-ground construction to continue on his White House ballroom while the case is under appeal. As we reported on Aug. 17, that put tight deadlines into play, with any action the high court might take -- including taking no action at all -- set to come by this Friday, Aug. 21. That is the date when the lower appeals court's injunction, forcing a temporary halt to above-ground construction on the East Wing ballroom, is scheduled to take effect.

If SCOTUS takes no action -- and that, in our view, is what it should do -- the temporary injunction stays in place, and the high court (with its Republican majority, including three Trump nominees) likely can do nothing to save the president's pet project. If anyone out there is even slightly inclined to shed a tear for our "Dear Leader," please don't. Here is why: As we showed in our Aug. 17 post, the ballroom project never should have gotten off the ground. That's because two sections of law make it clear that no president, including Trump, has the authority to unilaterally launch a project of such scope. Here is how we explained it, and I will highlight the two provisions of law below:

Congress has delegated limited powers to the president for the “care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting (including electric power and fixtures) of the Executive Residence at the White House” pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 105(d). That’s why no one’s suing Trump over the tacky gold shit he keeps stapling to the walls at the White House. But under 40 U.S.C. § 8106, “A building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.” A gigantic ballroom is obviously a “building or structure,” and Congress has not expressly authorized Trump and pals to build one in President’s Park.

Language cannot be much more clear than that, and there is evidence that Trump knew he did not have authority to demolish the East Wing and build a ballroom in its place, so he put the demolition on a fast track to make it unlikely that anyone could launch a court challenge against the project. That takes Trump's actions from "stupid and unnecessary" to "corrupt and Nixonesque." 

What do we mean by "Nixonesque"? Well, there was a relatively quaint period when many Americans considered Richard Nixon our most corrupt president of modern times, maybe of all time. But we cited a report from the Above the Law (ATL) Legal Website for the proposition that, when it comes to deceit and corruption, Donald Trump makes Richard Nixon look like an amateur. Here is how ATL put it:

This is likely why Trump was cagey about his plans, promising in July of 2025 that any “renovations” would “pay total respect” to the existing structure of the East Wing. Then in October, before anyone could rush into court to stop him, Trump knocked down the entire East Wing and dumped the rubble at East Potomac Golf Course — another target of his “beautification” rampage.

He repeatedly insists that “the desperately needed, and totally secure Ballroom… is a Gift from President Trump and Great Patriots of the United States of America. There will be no expense to the American Taxpayer.” In reality, he’s already grabbed $352 million in funds designated for the Secret Service — more than a tenth of the agency’s budget — to build his ballroom. The New York Times now puts the total cost at $600 million, with more than half of it coming from public money. (So much for the gift.)

I added some of my own analysis, in the unlikely event that the ATL take was not exceptionally clear. (I will highlight the segments below that, in my view, describe the most stomach-churning crookedness on Trump's part):

Let's take a closer look at the material highlighted in yellow above. First, the ATL writers use the term "cagey" to describe Trump's plans for "renovations" at the White House. That is a polite way of saying Trump was sociopathically dishonest, and the writers describe how and why he was dishonest . . . because he knew he had to destroy the East Wing before anyone could go to court to stop him. That suggests Trump knew his actions were unlawful, so he lied to the American people -- the ones, who by virtue of paying taxes, actually own the White House -- in order to get his way.

Second, the ATL writers describe Trump's pledge that his ballroom would come "at no expense to taxpayers," and they state how and why he violated that pledge . . . by essentially stealing one tenth of the Secret Service's budget and applying it to the ballroom while driving up the  project's cost past the $600-million mark. 

We went on to show that Trump's penchant for deceit seems to know zero limitations:

Speaking of soaring costs, Trump originally described the ballroom project as a space for social functions. But now, he describes it mostly as a "military installation." How did that happen? Well, it involves a whole lot more deceit. ATL reports:

In December 2025, the National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to block construction, arguing the project violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because Trump never secured Congressional approval as required by § 8106. Initially, the Justice Department argued that the APA did not apply, since construction was being run by the Office of the Executive Residence (EXR), rather than the National Park Service (NPS).

EXR’s job is to oversee floral arrangements and canapés at the White House, not major construction. But unlike the National Park Service, EXR is not a federal agency, and so it cannot be held to answer under the APA. Clearly the administration hoped to evade judicial review by parking this illegal construction inside the White House, and at first it actually worked. On February 26, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon denied the Trust’s first motion for preliminary injunction, holding that EXR cannot be sued under the APA. But Judge Leon also laid out a very clear road map for the Trust to get what it wanted.

“Unfortunately for Plaintiff, its challenge fails because the White House office in question is not an ‘agency’ under the APA and because Plaintiff did not bring the ultra vires claim necessary to challenge the President’s statutory authority to complete his construction project with private funds and without congressional approval!” he wrote. Hint, hint.

Five days later, the Trust amended its complaint to add an ultra vires claim, and on March 31, Judge Leon granted their renewed request for an injunction. “The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” he wrote. 

Let's return briefly to this point: Why do we say the Supreme Court should take no action and allow the circuit court's injunction to stay in place? Let's consider these words from uscourts.gov, which describes the process for asking the court to issue a writ of certiorari; that is the document by which the high court orders a lower court to send up the case record for review. SCOTUS hears 1% to 1.5% of the petitions for review it receives in a given year, so the chances of a regular American having a case heard before the nation's highest court are roughly nil. What factors does the Supreme Court consider in deciding whether to hear a case. Here is how uscourts.gov puts it:

The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value.

The two controlling sections or law we cited in the third paragraph above were approved by Congress in 1978 and 1912, respectively. That means they have been in place for roughly 48 to 114 years. While the White House itself has national significance, Donald Trump's attempts to unilaterally demolish portions of it are significant only for their brazen corruption. 

In its application for a stay to lift the injunction that stalled ballroom construction, the Trump administration primarily argues that the partially completed structure poses safety risks and that continued construction is needed for national security. It points to nothing of national significance in Trump's efforts to skirt Congress and the courts in his haste to raze a historic structure that he had no authority to destroy. It also points to no conflicting decisions in federal Circuit courts that would apply and no precedent that is at stake. 

In National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service, et al, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided against the Trump administration primarily on the following grounds, as stated by Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia, writing in the majority:

The White House is the People’s House, and under the Constitution’s Property Clause, Congress exercises plenary control over the building and its surrounding land. The White House is also the centerpiece of President’s Park, a National Park stewarded by the National Park Service. . . .  Each President is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its Executive Residence. The President has no—and claims no—constitutionally assigned authority over that property, which is designed and maintained for the use of all Presidents, current and future, and for the American people. As the defendant National Park Service has explained, “[t]he White House is owned by the American people and stewarded by the National Park Service. It is more than the President’s residence; it is a site for protests and national discourse about what it means to be American.”

In short, the case at hand was decided on simple tenant-landlord law, which generally is a matter of state law. Trump is a tenant in the White House, and therefore has no authority to demolish the East Wing or make other major revisions to property he does not own.

It's hard to see where there is even a federal question raised by Trump's application, not to mention the issues we described earlier that usually must be present for Supreme Court review. If the high court is to follow its own standards, it should take no action in Trump's application and let the current injunction stand. 

After following a long, winding, and unlawfully blocked road since 2015, files from Virginia Giuffre's lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell are set to be unsealed, likely causing some powerful men to sweat

Prince Andrew, with Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell (background) (CNN)

A federal court has ordered the unsealing of files from a lawsuit brought in 2015 by perhaps the best known victim in the Jeffrey Epstein case. The lawsuit, brought by Virginia Giuffre against Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, comes to a conclusion after eight years of litigation from the Miami Herald newspaper, which along with the award-winning work of reporter Julie K. Brown, is largely credited with exposing Epstein's criminal network. 

U.S. Judge Loretta Preska (Southern District of New York), an appointee of George H.W. Bush, ruled that the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) supersedes Maxwell's arguments to keep the lawsuit details sealed, a decision that could reveal more evidence against Epstein, Maxwell, and their accomplices. A recent report at Yahoo! News came under the headline "Ghislaine Maxwell's desperate bid to hide Jeffrey Epstein files crushed by judge." 

A separate, jointly published report from The New Republic (TNR) and Yahoo! News provides details about the long path the Giuffre lawsuit has traveled. Under the headline "Federal judge orders release of Virginia Giuffre's case files at last," TNR's Hafiz Rashid writes:

Virginia Giuffre's 2015 civil lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell is going to be unsealed.

A federal court in Manhattan last week ordered the public release of the files from Giuffre's defamation lawsuit against the accomplice and partner of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein following eight years of litigation from the Miami Herald, reported Julie Brown, the investigative journalist for the newspaper best known for uncovering Epstein's crimes.

Maxwell had been fighting to keep the lawsuit details under wraps, but her arguments were not enough to convince U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska, who ruled that the Epstein Files Transparency Act supersedes the grand jury arguments Maxwell cited to keep the records sealed.

Giuffre brought the lawsuit more than a decade ago after Maxwell accused her of lying about being abused by Epstein, Maxwell, Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, and other powerful figures. The lawsuit's discovery process yielded thousands of pages of documents, including depositions of Maxwell, Giuffre, and many others, and Brown was told that it contains more evidence against Epstein, Maxwell, and their accomplices. 

The lawsuit took a number of twists and turns over the years, including some questionable actions from the bench, Rashid reports:

The judge in the initial case, Robert Sweet, took the unusual step of sealing all of the documents because they contained "sensitive" and "private" information. He put a protective order on hearings and decisions made in the case as well as volumes of evidence reportedly proving that Epstein and Maxwell were running an underage sex-trafficking ring.

Before any of this could come out in a trial, Maxwell settled the case in 2017, paying Giuffre somewhere between $3 million and $5 million. But now much of the information that could implicate powerful people will soon be made public, and there could be fallout in Washington D.C., New York, and beyond.

The name of U.S. President Donald Trump and related terms reportedly are mentioned more than 38,000 times across more than 5,300 individual documents in the Epstein files. Is Trump one of the powerful figures who could be sweating about possible exposure in the Giuffre files? An answer to that question might unfold over the coming weeks. For now, it could be interesting to see what reaction, if any, Trump and his Department of Justice have to Judge Preska's decision. It also might be interesting to see what actions, if any, they are forced to take as the result of the files' release.

Julie K. Brown provides more insights about Judge Preska's decision in a piece at her "The Epstein Files" Substack page. Under the title "Miami Herald set a landmark legal and journalistic precedent in its fight to unseal the civil lawsuit. What it means," she writes:

Success, finally.

Last week, a federal court in Manhattan ordered the release of the voluminous case files from Virginia’s Giuffre’s 2015 civil lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell.

The release of these files was in part the result of eight years of litigation by the Miami Herald and its parent company, McClatchy, which have been fighting for the material since I published my series “Perversion of Justice,” in 2018.

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Judge Loretta Preska rejected Maxwell’s final arguments to keep the files sealed, noting that the passage last year of the Epstein Files Transparency Act superseded any earlier grand jury arguments that Maxwell was using to keep the records from the public.

What does this mean, and what new information will we learn?

First some history. Virginia brought this defamation lawsuit against Maxwell back in 2015, after Maxwell publicly proclaimed that Virginia was a liar who had made up her allegations of being sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell and other powerful men (including Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz and the former Prince Andrew.)

Giuffre, represented by the Boies-Schiller firm, sued Maxwell for defamation, asserting that she faced "public ridicule, contempt, and disgrace" when Maxwell went public with her statements. As part of the lawsuit, the lawyers gathered tens of thousands of pages of discovery, including depositions by Giuffre, Maxwell and dozens of other people. Part of the effort also involved Dershowitz, who together with social media influencer Michael Chernovich, tried unsuccessfully to unseal portions of the Giuffre-Maxwell case while it was still being litigated.

The lawsuit was settled in early 2017. I had been told the discovery contained damning evidence against Epstein, Maxwell and other men, and that it was worth trying to get the courts to unseal the documents on the grounds that they were never properly sealed in the first place.

Judicial records by law are supposed to be open to the public. In this case, the former judge (Robert Sweet, now deceased) issued a blanket sealing on all the documents because they contained “sensitive” and “private” information. Sweet placed a protective order on massive amounts of material, including hearings and judicial decisions made in the case — and voluminous evidence that Virginia presented to show that Epstein and Maxwell were operating an underage sex-trafficking operation.

This is not the way sealing is supposed to happen, however. Each document that the lawyers want sealed has to be examined, and those requesting it be sealed must provide legal justification to the judge for doing so. That wasn’t done in this case.

Nearly all the evidence that Virginia’s lawyers uncovered about Epstein and Maxwell’s sex trafficking that came out during this civil case was kept secret.

Maxwell settled the case before it could go to trial, however — and paid Virginia somewhere in the neighborhood of $3-5 million. By settling it, she thought that all the evidence about her involvement would remain under seal.

But I convinced my editors to ask our lawyers to file a motion to intervene in the case in order to unseal the files.

An appeals court eventually ruled in our favor, and on August 9, 2019, thousands of pages were made public, including sworn statements by Virginia in which she alleged she was trafficked to Dershowitz, who represented Epstein; former Prince Andrew; former Maine Sen. George Mitchell; former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin; hotel magnate Tom Pritzker; the late MIT scientist Marvin Minsky. All of the men denied that they were involved with Giuffre.

Epstein was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell the following morning.

Georgia's Jon Ossoff, showing the guts and street smarts Democrats will need on the 2028 campaign trail, shines light on Trump's peculiar connections to his devoted "human printer"

Natalie Harp exits a plane behind Donald Trump (The Independent/Getty)

It is too early to determine favorites for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2028. But U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) has made a favorable impression on this blogger by showing that he will call out President Donald Trump for the rich vein of dubious conduct that has come to mark his public life. Some of you might be saying to yourselves, "Schnauzer, almost everything Trump does is dubious -- and that's putting it kindly -- so what has he done to draw Jon Ossoff's scorn and your attention."

What catches my attention every day -- and it's been the subject of just about every post I've written here at Legal Schnauzer for months -- is the precarious position in which Trump has placed our country, thanks to his unusual ability to produce one ill-considered decision after another. Still, certain segments of our electorate provide Trump with their undying loyalty -- often denying he did what he clearly did, or said what he clearly said. To overcome that kind of cult-like thinking, while also drawing our country together in what likely will be a long and treacherous effort to recover from Trump's disastrous second term (and we thought his first one was bad enough) might be the greatest challenge of our lifetimes.

That will require the leadership of someone with an unusual set of political gifts -- someone with energy, spirit, grit and fight. And I'm talking about someone who has the fight of a true Democrat, not someone who calls themselves a socialist while clinging to the Democratic Party banner, like a parasite, for all of the value they can wring from it. Smarts are another critical trait, and Ossof has shown me -- and a number of statewide, regional, and national observers -- that he has the brainpower to become a Democratic frontrunner. I think Ossoff has a strong handle on what makes Trump's political machine tick. Ossoff knows the president has spent a lot of time in Manhattan high rises, but he also is a product of New York streets. And that has given him a kind of lawless street fighter ethos that seems to resonate with certain cultish followers, though Trump clearly favors concerns of the billionaire class over any working-man issues. 

Having spent most of my adult life in Alabama, I know Deep South political races can be rough and tumble affairs  (often with all kinds of chicanery playing out in the background), probably with as many ragged edges as anything New York City has to offer. That makes me think Ossoff has the toughness to take on Trump and effectively communicate the message that a vote for any Republican in '28 is a vote for enablers who have made many of Trump's failed policies possible. It's also a vote for, one could argue, a party whose No. 1 priority seems to be protecting pedophiles. 

Ossoff revealed his knack for punching back at Trump when he shined a spotlight this week on one of the most peculiar relationships in a Trump universe filled with them. We are talking about his ties to Natalie Harp, the aide and "human printer," who seems to be hermetically sealed to his side. She is one of the primary voices behind Truth Social, where Trump issues many of his insults, bromides, and policy ideas. Given Trump's well-known laziness and aversion to reading, Harp might be the only voice at Truth Social -- and that gives her a significant microphone.

Compared to allegations against Trump contained in the Epstein files, any romance that might have developed between Trump and Harp seems tame to be sure. After all, she is an adult, at least technically, and we've seen no signs that she has been coerced to be in proximity to Trump.

But Ossoff, perhaps sensing that the relationship gives off bad vibes for the presidency, apparently was the first person who was unafraid to call it to the attention of a nationwide audience. How did he do it? Yahoo! News provides details under the headline "Jon Ossoff's latest Trump takedown takes an unexpected Natalie Harp turn":

Jon Ossoff took aim at Donald Trump during a Sunday rally in Atlanta, but his sharpest jab landed somewhere unexpected: the president's relationship with White House executive assistant Natalie Harp. The Georgia Democrat folded Harp into a broader attack on Trump's leadership, work habits, and decision-making.

The Georgia senator mocked Trump for traveling with his executive assistant on the Qatar-donated presidential jet.

Ossoff contrasted Trump's lifestyle with that of sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, who he said had spent nearly nine months at sea. He accused the president of "lying a nation into war" and treating Americans and military personnel as "pawns," while claiming Trump naps during his "meetings, golfs and trades stocks" instead of doing his job (via The Daily Beast).

Next came an argument that Democrats would be wise to repeatedly use against Republicans on the campaign trail between now and November 2028:

Then came the punchline. Ossoff argued that Trump appeared more interested in building his White House ballroom and traveling with Harp aboard the presidential aircraft donated by Qatar than doing any actual work. "He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie," Ossoff told the Atlanta crowd, referring to the jet as an "apparently defenseless flying palace." 

The jab landed at a particularly convenient moment. Just days earlier, Trump had flown back to Washington with Harp aboard the Qatar-donated plane after spending the weekend at his New Jersey golf club. Harp has also become a familiar figure around Trump during his second term.

Ossoff is not the only person to make note of the Trump-Harp relationship. But no political figure has spoken of it with the force and bravado that Ossoff showed. From the Yahoo! report:

Harp's unusually close access to Trump has become a talking point of its own. The Daily Beast, citing reporting from New York Times journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan in their book Regime Change, said Trump once described Harp as someone who loved him as deeply as his wife and children. (Does he seriously think his wife and children love him?) The book also claimed she left personal, affectionate messages in areas of his private quarters.

Haberman later gave that relationship another layer while discussing a separate security incident with MS NOW's Jacob Soboroff. She referred to Harp as Trump's "comfort blanket," portraying her as a calming presence during his reported departure from Ankara after an alleged Iranian assassination threat. Harp was reportedly on the military aircraft with Trump, while several other top officials stayed aboard a decoy Air Force One. 

Trump throws a tantrum when courts take away his cherished ballroom toy, so the administration resorts to a trail of deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation in an attempt to get it back

If anyone in America still doubts that we have a lying, cheating, corrupt president -- one who has surrounded himself with an army of boot-licking sycophants -- all they need to do is check out the machinations to which the Trump administration will resort in an effort to get the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to allow continued construction of the president's cherished ballroom while he seeks an appeal to the high court. No one that I'm aware of has spelled out the diabolical nature of said machinations quite like the journalist/lawyers at the  Above the Law (ATL) Legal Website. In this instance, Liz Dye and Andrew Torrez lead the way under the headline "Bunker Ballroom Blocked," which provides details about Trump's effort to land an emergency stay from SCOTUS that would allow above-ground construction to continue on the $400-million White House ballroom while the case is under appeal.

Before we get into the meat of the article, let's briefly note procedural matters -- in this case, tight deadlines -- that bear watching. The high court likely will take action on the administration's stay request by Friday, August 21. This is when the lower appeals court's injunction forcing a temporary halt to above-ground construction on the East Wing ballroom project is scheduled to take effect.

Here is the key point that Dye and Torrez drive home in their article: Trump has repeatedly couched the ballroom project as a benevolent gesture on his part -- a gift, if you will -- to "the people's house" that has been needed for decades. Dye and Torrez show it is anything but that, filled with the kind of brazen deception for which Trump has become known. In fact, deception might be Trump's only presidential "talent," as the ATL writers show when they begin:

Trump has given America so many gifts! An “American Flag Blue” reflecting pool so clear you could swim in it. A state fair packed with luminaries like Dean Cain to celebrate the nation’s semiquincentennial. A giant arch that would make Reich Minister Albert Speer blush. And soon, a beautiful bunker ballroom where the White House’s East Wing once stood. All funded by private donations, at no cost to the taxpayer!

Or he would bless us with these bounties if evil, activist judges would quit getting in his way. 

The latest setback came Friday, courtesy of Judges Patricia Millett and Brad Garcia, appointed to the DC Circuit by “Barack Hussein Obama” and “Sleepy Joe Biden.” Over the dissent of “Highly Respected Judge, Neomi Rao” [sic], the three-judge panel affirmed the district court’s order blocking above-grade construction of Trump’s 90,000-square-foot Mar-a-Lago replica.

Naturally, Trump spent the weekend posting AI slop of the ballroom’s roof captioned “Drone Port.” (See image at the beginning of this post.)

What message was Trump trying to send with his image of military hardware perched atop the White House? The answer is not immediately clear, but you can bet it has little to do with "truth" or a desire to be "forthcoming" -- two words that hardly ever are used in the same sentence as "Donald Trump. Dye and Torrez write:

Tanker trucks on the roof are confusing, but the law here is not. Congress has delegated limited powers to the president for the “care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting (including electric power and fixtures) of the Executive Residence at the White House” pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 105(d). That’s why no one’s suing Trump over the tacky gold shit he keeps stapling to the walls at the White House. But under 40 U.S.C. § 8106, “A building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.” A gigantic ballroom is obviously a “building or structure,” and Congress has not expressly authorized Trump and pals to build one in President’s Park.

The two sections of law cited in the above paragraph should put the ballroom issue to rest. But we are talking about Donald Trump here, and he is equivalent to a toddler who's had his favorite toy taken away -- and he's going to squall until he gets it back, or until someone spanks his butt, which SCOTUS has been reluctant to do. In fact, the high court has become Trump's No. 1 enabler, and it is unclear if the justices have any clue how to deal with a crook who has Trump's "skillset." That's because we've never had a criminal of Trump's stature in the White House, at least not in our lifetimes. Heck, Trump makes Richard Nixon look like Captain Kangaroo. And Nixon, if you overlook the criminality, actually could function as a pretty fair president. Trump brings nothing to the office except deceit. Speaking of deceit, get a load of the following section from the ATL article:

This is likely why Trump was cagey about his plans, promising in July of 2025 that any “renovations” would “pay total respect” to the existing structure of the East Wing. Then in October, before anyone could rush into court to stop him, Trump knocked down the entire East Wing and dumped the rubble at East Potomac Golf Course — another target of his “beautification” rampage.

He repeatedly insists that “the desperately needed, and totally secure Ballroom… is a Gift from President Trump and Great Patriots of the United States of America. There will be no expense to the American Taxpayer.” In reality, he’s already grabbed $352 million in funds designated for the Secret Service — more than a tenth of the agency’s budget — to build his ballroom. The New York Times now puts the total cost at $600 million, with more than half of it coming from public money. (So much for the gift.)

Let's take a closer look at the material highlighted in yellow above. First, the ATL writers use the term "cagey" to describe Trump's plans for "renovations" at the White House. That is a polite way of saying Trump was sociopathically dishonest, and the writers describe how and why he was dishonest . . . because he knew he had to destroy the East Wing before anyone could go to court to stop him. That suggests Trump knew his actions were unlawful, so he lied to the American people -- the ones, who by virtue of paying taxes, actually own the White House -- in order to get his way.

Second, the ATL writers describe Trump's pledge that his ballroom would come "at no expense to taxpayers," and they state how and why he violated that pledge . . . by essentially stealing one tenth of the Secret Service's budget and applying it to the ballroom while driving up the  project's cost past the $600-million mark.

If the above information does not take your breath away -- if it does not leave you feeling like you've been had -- well, we've all been had. Some of us recognize it, and some of us, inexplicably, do not.

Speaking of soaring costs, Trump originally described the ballroom project as a space for social functions. But now, he describes it mostly as a "military installation." How did that happen? Well, it involves a whole lot more deceit. Dye and Torrez write:

In December 2025, the National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to block construction, arguing the project violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because Trump never secured Congressional approval as required by § 8106. Initially, the Justice Department argued that the APA did not apply, since construction was being run by the Office of the Executive Residence (EXR), rather than the National Park Service (NPS).

EXR’s job is to oversee floral arrangements and canapés at the White House, not major construction. But unlike the National Park Service, EXR is not a federal agency, and so it cannot be held to answer under the APA. Clearly the administration hoped to evade judicial review by parking this illegal construction inside the White House, and at first it actually worked. On February 26, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon denied the Trust’s first motion for preliminary injunction, holding that EXR cannot be sued under the APA. But Judge Leon also laid out a very clear road map for the Trust to get what it wanted.

“Unfortunately for Plaintiff, its challenge fails because the White House office in question is not an ‘agency’ under the APA and because Plaintiff did not bring the ultra vires claim necessary to challenge the President’s statutory authority to complete his construction project with private funds and without congressional approval!” he wrote. Hint, hint.

Five days later, the Trust amended its complaint to add an ultra vires claim, and on March 31, Judge Leon granted their renewed request for an injunction. “The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” he wrote.

"My God," you might be saying, "a federal judge flat-out told Trump he is not the owner of the White House, but the president still can't get that through his demented brain." I hear you -- and Dye and Torrez surely would hear you, too. They write:

Judge Leon mocked the government’s fallback theory that building Trump’s ballroom was a permissible “renovation” authorized by 3 U.S.C. § 105(d), noting that such an interpretation would give the President functionally limitless power. “Under Defendants’ reading, virtually any change to the White House could be framed as an ‘alteration’ or ‘improvement,’” he scoffed. “Indeed, some might even view tearing down the White House and building a modern skyscraper in its place as an ‘improvement.’” Indeed!

The government immediately appealed the injunction. But then, in late April, a disturbed man breached the first layer of security at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in an attempt to assassinate the president. Not wanting to let a good crisis go to waste, the Trump administration howled that this incident demonstrated the desperate need for the ballroom, accusing the plaintiffs of trying to get the president killed. Never mind that, even if it were appropriate to hold the WHCD at the White House, the event would be far too large for Trump’s planned ballroom.

Even when they howl, Trumpers mostly spew nonsense. They claim a ballroom was supposed to protect an imperiled president and the First Family? (Do we have a First Family? When was the last time anyone saw Melania Trump appearing in an official capacity as first lady? Does Barron Trump even exist, aside from his apparent relationship with Andrew and Tristan Tate?)

Since a ballroom clearly was not going to protect our mostly non-existent First Family, the project suddenly had to become a bunker. That led to a peculiar motion from the Department of Justice (DOJ), using nutty language that asks the court to "dissolve" its own injunction. From the ATL piece:

On top of the intemperate language, the motion floated the brand new claim that the underground bunker and the ballroom were so “knitted, unified, and cohesive” that halting construction of one necessarily stopped the other. This is exactly the opposite of what the government told the court in January, when it swore that underground construction could proceed without locking in the above-grade architecture.

Unsurprisingly, Judge Leon declined to grant the government’s request.

Can you handle one more example of Trumpian deceit? Since the law is clear that no president can unilaterally tear up any portion of the White House and build something in its place, the administration is trying to rely on a relatively arcane area of the law called "standing." But following that track, requires misstating the law -- and neither Trump nor his DOJ have any problem doing that, especially with Todd Blanche now installed as attorney general. (Unfortunately, the administration's effort appears to have involved "fraudulent misrepresentation") :

Because Trump has no authority to rebuild the White House without Congressional approval, the DOJ has leaned hard into standing as a means to defeat this case. It sneers contemptuously that architectural historian Alison Hoagland, the individual plaintiff through whom the Trust claims aesthetic injury, is merely “a single person who walks her dog in the vicinity of the White House.”

In fact, aesthetic standing is a well-established doctrine that has been around for decades. And, as Judge Millett pointed out in her opinion affirming the injunction, this “cramped standing theory would deem no one injured by a decision to raze the Statue of Liberty, to obscure the names on the Vietnam War Memorial, or to install a political billboard atop Mount Rushmore.”

She agreed with Judge Leon that the “care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting” referred to in § 105(d) refers to ordinary maintenance and upkeep, not demolishing an entire structure and building a new one in its place. And so, barring intervention by the Supreme Court, Judge Leon’s injunction will hold. The administration is free to continue work on the underground bunker and other measures it deems necessary to Trump’s personal security, but can’t erect his temple of tackiness.

Katie Phang's lawsuit over DOJ's handling of the Epstein files could be another opportunity for Todd Blanche to show his loyalty to Donald Trump, but Judge Emmet Sullivan doesn't seem inclined to let that happen

(CNN International, Facebook)

Federal judges in the District of Columbia reportedly have been reluctant over the years to hold lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in contempt of court. But the judge overseeing a lawsuit about the DOJ's alleged failure to turn over documents from the Epstein files made it clear at a status hearing yesterday he had no such qualms. In fact, Judge Emmet Sullivan made a special point of noting he has held government lawyers in contempt before.

The warning that he was ready and willing to hold Attorney General (AG) Todd Blanche and his department in contempt probably was the No. 1 takeaway from a case that might hold the key to powerful individuals, possibly including President Donald Trump, being identified as alleged conspirators with the late convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Trump has not formally been designated a co-conspirator in the matter, but U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) raised his name in documents released last December while demanding answers about possible co-conspirators who have been investigated and accusing members of the Trump administration -- including former Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel -- of "hiding" information in the case.

A key question that emerged from yesterday's hearing: Is Todd Blanche now engaged in a similar effort to keep Epstein-files documents under wraps? It was hard to reach an answer on that because Blanche did no attend the hearing -- and that itself could be seen as a stalling tactic. But Judge Sullivan gave the distinct impression that he is serious about holding Blanche and the DOJ to their obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), which Congress passed and Trump signed into law last November.  A jointly published article at NBC News and Yahoo! shines a spotlight on key moments from the status hearing under the headline "Judge shows signs of frustration with DOJ attorneys over handling of Epstein files." Ryan J. Reilly reports:

A federal judge overseeing a case focused on the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files pressed government attorneys Thursday about their compliance with his court orders and warned that he has held lawyers in contempt before.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, a 41-year veteran of the bench, convened the hearing seeking answers about whether the Trump administration had complied with his previous orders in the case, including one about the need for the Justice Department to publish justifications for the numerous redactions in the released Epstein files.

Justice Department official Andrew Block told Sullivan he was not in a position to commit to a time frame, saying that it was out of his control and that information would be "forthcoming."

"Christmas is forthcoming," Sullivan quipped. 

Handling the high-profile case clearly has not caused Judge Sullivan to lose his sense of humor. But his tone during the hearing could not be described as "light-hearted" either. Reilly writes:

Sullivan called his orders "straightforward" and said he was willing to work with the government to obtain compliance.

"You want me to issue another order and say, 'I really mean it this time'?" Sullivan said at one point.

Of all the courtroom matters the Epstein files have produced, history might ultimately hold that the one currently before Sullivan was the most important of all, as Reilly explains:

The case stems from a lawsuit journalist Katie Phang filed against Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, arguing that the Justice Department had failed to comply in full with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law last year. The suit alleges the government failed to make some key redactions, inappropriately redacted other information and improperly withheld documents that referred to President Donald Trump.

The Justice Department had argued that Phang lacked standing to bring the case, and it has said it is "absurd" to claim the Justice Department violated Sullivan's order in June requiring more information surrounding specific redacted files.

Former Attorney General Pam Bondi, who led the Justice Department when millions of Epstein files were made public, told lawmakers after Trump fired her that "redaction errors" occurred during the records' release. 

Perhaps concerned that the DOJ's Block and others in attendance might not have been intimately familiar with his background, Judge Sullivan made a special effort to fill them in. Reilly writes:

At Thursday's hearing, Sullivan embarked on a history lesson about a previous case before him in which the Justice Department withheld exculpatory evidence: the prosecution of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, whose conviction the Justice Department moved to reverse in 2009 not long before Stevens died in a plane crash. Sullivan recalled that he held government attorneys in contempt for withholding information and that an appeals court upheld his decision.

Sullivan said it was important for attorneys to know he was a judge willing to "enforce legitimate judicial orders" with the means available to him. 

"I'm not in a habit of blindsiding people," he said.

He added that he had "absolutely no desire to go down that road again" but wanted to make sure the attorneys were aware that it has happened before. 

Will Todd Blanche go "Gulp!" when he reads that in the hearing transcript? Maybe, but it remains unclear just how far Blanche is willing to go to keep information about Trump (and possibly some of his billionaire allies) away from the prying eyes of the public. Evidence so far suggests he is willing to go pretty darned far. From the NBC/Yahoo report:

Attorney Brendan Ballou, who is representing Phang, said in a statement after the hearing that Blanche had "failed to follow the law."

"He has failed to produce its redaction log. He has failed to begin producing foreign language documents. He has failed to produce notes concerning Donald Trump," Ballou said. "The Justice Department's strategy here is endless delay, and we're glad that the Court appears to recognize this. Our next step is to file a proposed order for how to handle the Attorney General's noncompliance, which we plan to do shortly."

The hearing took place shortly after Blanche, who was recently confirmed as attorney general, addressed Justice Department employees at headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue.

"We will always respect the role of the judiciary. We will not engage in or stand for any sort of performative attacks that undermine the institutions that we are sworn to uphold," he said. "At the same time, we're not going to be intimidated."

Was Blanche suggesting that a judge taking proper steps to ensure compliance with the EFTA is an act of intimidation? It certainly could be taken that way, and that likely will not sit well with members of the D.C. Judiciary, including Sullivan.

A number of observers have noted that Blanche seems intent on turning the DOJ into Donald Ttump's personal law firm -- that Blanche's No. 1 priority is to do anything Trump tells him to do -- the hell with the department's history of acting independently of the White House. 

The Katie Phang matter almost certainly is the most important court case in the United States at the moment -- and it likely will come down to a battle of wills between Todd Blanche and Emmet Sullivan. If our republic is to survive the horror show of Donald Trump's second term, it is imperative that Todd Blanche come out on the short end of that battle of wills.