US supreme court lets Trump continue work on White House ballroom for now | Donald Trump

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-08-21 15:48:00 — www.theguardian.com

Trump Claims White House Ballroom Project Is Historic and Under Budget Amid Legal and Political Controversy

Donald Trump has asserted that his controversial White House ballroom project fulfills a long-standing desire of both past presidents and the military, stating in a social media post, “It is something that Presidents have wanted for 150 years, and that the Military has been seeking for the last 100 years. Their wish will soon be fulfilled! Construction is under budget and ahead of schedule.”

Supreme Court Temporarily Allows Construction

The Supreme Court, through a temporary order signed by Chief Justice John Roberts, has allowed construction of the 90,000-square-foot ballroom to continue while it considers an emergency appeal from Trump’s administration. This move pauses a lower court order that would have halted the project, which has already involved the demolition of the White House East Wing and is expected to cost more than $400 million.

Disputed Claims and Legal Challenges

Trump’s claim that the project is “under budget and ahead of schedule” comes as the administration faces criticism and legal challenges. A federal appeals court previously found that the ballroom project likely requires congressional approval before work can proceed, leading to a legal battle over presidential authority in White House renovations. The administration has argued that the president holds sole authority over such renovations, not Congress or the courts.

National Security Justification

The Trump administration has justified the project as critical to national security, emphasizing the inclusion of an underground, five-story military bunker equipped with shelters and a hospital. Officials argue that leaving the site as an open construction zone would make protecting the White House more difficult.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Statements

Trump’s assertion that “Presidents have wanted [a ballroom] for 150 years, and that the Military has been seeking [it] for the last 100 years” is presented without supporting evidence in the excerpt. No documentation or historical record is cited to substantiate this sweeping claim, and the statement appears to exaggerate the historical demand for such a facility.

Political Backlash

Democrats have sharply criticized the project and the Supreme Court’s intervention. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused the administration of wasting money on “Trump’s pet projects” and described the court’s decision as “rubber stamping Trump’s vanity-driven, gilded corruption.”

Conclusion

Trump’s statements about the White House ballroom project highlight his tendency to make broad, unsubstantiated claims about the historical and military necessity of his initiatives. As the legal and political battles continue, the project remains a flashpoint for controversy over presidential authority, government spending, and the factual accuracy of Trump’s public statements.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/21/white-house-ballroom-construction-scotus

Supreme Court chief justice allows work on Trump’s $400M White House ballroom to continue for now

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-08-21 13:42:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Administration Claims Total Authority Over White House Renovations Amid Legal Battle

The Trump administration has asserted that the president holds “total authority” to renovate the White House and other federal buildings as he sees fit, a position now at the center of a high-profile legal dispute over the $400 million White House ballroom project. The administration further argues that the completion of the new ballroom is “vitally required by national security,” despite earlier statements that did not mention security concerns.

Contradictory Justifications for the Ballroom Project

When Donald Trump first announced the plans for the new 90,000-square-foot ballroom, he emphasized that the project would be funded by private donations, including contributions from himself. National security was not initially cited as a reason for the construction. Only after legal challenges emerged did the administration pivot to claiming national security as a justification for the rapid completion of the project.

Legal Challenges and Accusations of Executive Overreach

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has challenged the project, arguing that Trump lacks unilateral authority to undertake such extensive work, which has already included demolishing the East Wing. Lawyers for the preservation group have accused the White House of attempting to “outrun the courts” by accelerating construction before legal questions are resolved.

A Washington-based judge previously ruled that construction must stop because Trump did not obtain congressional approval. This decision was temporarily paused by Chief Justice John Roberts, allowing work to continue while the Supreme Court considers the administration’s emergency request.

Ongoing Dispute Over Presidential Power

Two appeals-court judges appointed by Democratic presidents determined that the project is a matter for Congress, not the executive branch, to decide. In contrast, a judge appointed by Trump found that the preservationist group lacked legal standing to sue.

Despite these legal setbacks, the Trump administration maintains that 65% of the ballroom project is already complete, with crews working around the clock and approximately $200 million in private donations spent or committed.

Conclusion: A Pattern of Shifting Narratives

The Trump administration’s evolving justifications for the White House ballroom project—shifting from private funding to urgent national security needs—highlight a pattern of changing narratives when faced with legal and public scrutiny. As the Supreme Court weighs the case, the outcome will have significant implications for the limits of presidential authority and the role of congressional oversight in federal projects.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-chief-justice-allows-work-on-trumps-400m-white-house-ballroom-to-continue-for-now

Prison Firm Donated to Trump’s PAC After ICE Gave It $165 Million a Year in Contracts

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-08-21 14:36:00 — www.nytimes.com

Donald Trump Asserts Control Over MAGA Inc. Funds Amid Private Prison Donations

Donald Trump has openly declared his control over the spending of MAGA Inc., the super PAC that has raised more than $400 million since the beginning of last year, including millions from donors with interests before his administration. “I control it,” Trump said in a recent interview with Punchbowl News, adding: “I could spend it on pretty much anything I want. I’m going to spend it for — I’m going to help Republicans.”

This statement comes as campaign finance reports reveal that a subsidiary of the GEO Group, one of the nation’s largest private prison operators, donated over $1.4 million to Trump’s political operation last month. The donations followed the Trump administration’s awarding of contracts to the GEO Group that could pay the company $165 million a year to house immigrants awaiting deportation. Specifically, GEO donated $1 million on July 16, just three days after announcing an $85 million-a-year contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for a Colorado detention center. Another $413,000 was donated on July 31, two days after a separate $80 million-a-year contract for a North Carolina facility.

While there is no direct evidence linking the donations to the awarding of these contracts, the timing has raised questions about the influence of major donors on Trump’s administration. The president and his administration have been reported to afford access or favorable treatment to large corporate donors to MAGA Inc., including tobacco companies, a biotech firm, and other business interests.

Trump’s fundraising approach also breaks with tradition. Second-term presidents typically shift their focus to supporting their party’s committees and candidates, but Trump has continued aggressively raising money for his own political operation and favored causes, including a White House ballroom and initiatives for the nation’s 250th birthday.

Despite the influx of cash, some Republicans have complained that MAGA Inc. has been slow to spend on behalf of their candidates. Trump, however, maintains that he will use the PAC’s cash reserves to help his party in the upcoming midterm elections.

Conclusion

Trump’s explicit assertion of control over MAGA Inc.’s funds and the close timing of major donations from private prison interests highlight ongoing concerns about the intersection of money, access, and policy in his administration. As Trump continues to raise and direct vast sums for his political operation, scrutiny over the influence of major donors and the transparency of his fundraising practices is likely to intensify.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/geo-group-maga-inc-donations-ice-contracts.html

Trump is finally hitting the campaign trail. It’s not for a battleground member.

Politics — 2026-08-21 04:00:00 — www.politico.com

President Trump’s Campaign Strategy Faces Scrutiny as He Rallies for Darline Graham in South Carolina

President Donald Trump is drawing attention for his decision to hold a high-profile campaign rally for Sen. Darline Graham in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, just days before her runoff against Republican Rep. Ralph Norman. This move, which marks a return to his signature campaign style, comes as some Republicans in battleground states question why Trump is focusing on a safe Republican seat rather than more competitive races that could determine control of Congress.

Trump’s campaign activity this year has been notably less visible than in previous election cycles. While he has made appearances with endorsed candidates, these have largely been tied to official White House business, such as promoting affordability and domestic energy production. His recent rally for Graham stands in contrast to his more subdued support for candidates in key battlegrounds like Georgia, Michigan, and Texas, where his involvement has often been limited to social media posts or tele-town halls.

The White House, responding to concerns about Trump’s focus on South Carolina, stated, “President Trump is the unequivocal leader of the Republican party who is committed to maintaining Republicans’ majority in Congress.” The statement emphasized Trump’s intent to “draw a sharp contrast with his commonsense agenda and the radical Democrats in Congress who allowed millions of illegal aliens to flow through the border, unanimously opposed the Working Families Tax Cuts, and are soft-on-crime.”

Trump’s decision to campaign in South Carolina is widely seen as a reflection of his longstanding relationship with the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, Darline Graham’s brother. Trump reportedly pushed for Darline Graham’s appointment to the Senate and encouraged her to run for a full term, making his involvement in her campaign a personal priority.

Despite the boost his appearance provides to Graham’s campaign, some Republicans argue that Trump’s attention would be better spent in states where GOP control is at risk. Critics point to his limited presence on the campaign trail during the primary season and question whether he will deploy his influence and resources more broadly as the general election approaches.

Conclusion

President Trump’s selective campaign efforts have sparked debate within the Republican Party about his strategic priorities and commitment to maintaining congressional majorities. As he rallies for Darline Graham in a safe Republican state, operatives and candidates in more competitive races are left wondering if and when they will receive similar support. The outcome of Graham’s runoff may serve as a bellwether for Trump’s influence and approach in the months ahead.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/21/trump-rally-south-carolina-darline-graham-01045166

Trump lawyer to liberal think tank: Retract National Guard report that defames president

Administration News — 2026-08-21 11:59:00 — thehill.com

President Trump Threatens $5 Billion Lawsuit Over Critical National Guard Report

President Trump has demanded that the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank, retract a report critical of his National Guard deployments. According to a nine-page letter sent by Trump’s personal attorney and reviewed by The Hill, Trump threatened to file a $5 billion defamation suit if CAP does not comply by Friday evening. In the letter, Trump claimed that CAP “manufactured” the report’s findings.

Trump’s aggressive response centers on his assertion that the think tank’s report was not only inaccurate but deliberately fabricated to harm his reputation. The demand for a retraction and the threat of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit underscore Trump’s willingness to use legal threats to counteract criticism and negative coverage.

The dispute highlights Trump’s ongoing pattern of attacking critics and challenging reports that cast his actions in a negative light. By characterizing the CAP report as “manufactured,” Trump is directly accusing the organization of dishonesty, a claim that raises questions about the accuracy of his own statements and the evidence supporting his position.

This episode is the latest example of Trump’s confrontational approach to negative press and analysis. His threat of a massive defamation suit, paired with claims that a critical report was fabricated, reflects a broader strategy of attempting to silence dissent and reshape the narrative around his actions.

As the deadline for CAP’s response approaches, the situation underscores the high stakes and contentious atmosphere surrounding Trump’s public statements and legal maneuvers. Readers should note Trump’s history of making sweeping claims against critics, often without providing substantiating evidence, as part of his broader effort to control the public conversation about his record.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6043735-trump-center-american-progress-national-guard-defamation/

WATCH LIVE: Trump stumps for S.C. Sen. Darline Graham ahead of GOP runoff

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-08-21 09:34:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Makes Last-Minute Push for Darline Graham in South Carolina Senate Runoff

President Donald Trump is making a high-profile visit to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, to rally support for Sen. Darline Graham, his chosen candidate to replace her late brother, Sen. Lindsey Graham, ahead of a crucial Republican runoff. Trump’s involvement underscores the importance he places on securing a win for his endorsed candidate in a state that has long been a Republican stronghold.

Trump’s Direct Involvement and Endorsement

Trump has played a central role in Darline Graham’s campaign from the outset. He urged South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster to appoint her as interim senator following Lindsey Graham’s sudden death, calling the move a “fabulous tribute to Lindsey.” Trump later amplified his support on social media, pressing “RUN DARLINE, RUN” and giving her his “Complete and Total Endorsement” even before she officially announced her campaign. On the eve of the primary, Trump held a tele-rally for Graham, reinforcing his commitment to her candidacy.

Trump’s Agenda and Graham’s Platform

Throughout the campaign, Darline Graham has repeatedly emphasized her alignment with Trump’s priorities. She has stated she is “answering President Trump’s call to serve” and pledged to “fight for President Trump’s agenda,” specifically highlighting border security and the SAVE Act voting bill as top issues. Graham has positioned herself as a political outsider, echoing Trump’s own outsider image, and has focused her campaign on economic concerns like gas prices and household spending.

No Comment on National Security Gaffe

Earlier this week, Graham drew attention for her response to a foreign policy question, telling debate moderators, “National security is not my thing.” Trump has made no comment on this gaffe, which has become a talking point in the race.

Strategic Rally in Conservative Territory

Trump’s rally in Myrtle Beach is a calculated move to energize his base in a region known for its deep conservative ties and loyalty to him. The area is also home to Rep. Russell Fry, another Trump ally whose name was floated as a possible replacement for Lindsey Graham. Fry, who benefited from Trump’s backing in his own congressional race, quickly endorsed Darline Graham after finishing third in the Senate primary.

Conclusion

President Trump’s active involvement in the South Carolina Senate race demonstrates his ongoing influence within the Republican Party and his determination to shape the party’s future by backing loyalists. As voters prepare to decide between Graham and Rep. Ralph Norman, Trump’s endorsement and campaign efforts are likely to play a pivotal role in the outcome. The race not only tests the strength of Trump’s hold on the GOP but also highlights the continued importance of his approval in Republican primaries.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-trump-stumps-for-s-c-sen-darline-graham-ahead-of-gop-runoff

Trump Threatens Suit Against Think Tank Over Report He Doesn’t Like

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-08-21 09:26:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Threatens $5 Billion Lawsuit Against Think Tank Over National Guard Report

President Trump has escalated his campaign against political adversaries by threatening the Center for American Progress (CAP), a prominent liberal think tank, with a $5 billion defamation lawsuit. The move comes after CAP published a report concluding that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to cities across the country has had little effect on reducing violent crime.

Trump’s Legal Threats and Public Attacks

Trump, through his personal lawyer Alejandro Brito, demanded that CAP retract its report and apologize, claiming the findings were “full of malicious and false statements.” Trump also referred to the report on social media as “another Radical Left SCAM,” and threatened to sue the think tank and several of its funders, including financier George Soros, whom he has repeatedly targeted in public statements.

The letter from Trump’s lawyer set a deadline for CAP’s president, Neera Tanden, and her board to retract the report and apologize, or face legal action and unspecified financial compensation demands. The letter ended with the warning: “PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY.”

Pattern of Intimidation

This is not the first time Trump has used the legal system to go after critics. Since his re-election, he has filed lawsuits against news organizations such as the BBC and The Times, alleging defamation, and even sued the Des Moines Register over a poll predicting he would lose the Iowa vote, calling it consumer fraud and election interference. Trump has repeatedly claimed his administration is the most transparent in American history, yet he and his aides have aggressively used lawsuits and executive actions to target law firms, universities, and media outlets. Many of these efforts have failed in court.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

The CAP report, which analyzed homicide, violent crime, and gun victimization data in cities where the National Guard was deployed, found “no evidence” that the deployments reduced crime rates. The report also stated that the primary goal of the deployments was “never to stop crime,” but rather amounted to “a dangerous power grab by the Trump administration.” The deployments are projected to cost taxpayers more than $1.7 billion if continued through 2026.

Trump’s attempt to take credit for a nationwide decline in violent crime is contradicted by the report’s findings, which show the decline began before he returned to the White House and was unrelated to National Guard deployments.

Response from CAP and Broader Community

Neera Tanden, CAP’s president, rejected the legal threats, stating the center would “neither cower nor bend in the face” of legal action and defending the report as “grounded in rigorous, evidence-based research and analysis.” CAP’s lawyer, Kevin H. Metz, dismissed Trump’s accusations as “utterly absurd,” emphasizing that “truth is not and cannot be defamation.”

Other think tanks, including the libertarian Cato Institute, have rallied to CAP’s defense, warning that such lawsuits threaten the ability of independent organizations to challenge those in power without fear of retaliation.

Conclusion

Trump’s latest legal threat against the Center for American Progress fits a broader pattern of using lawsuits to intimidate critics and suppress unflattering analysis, despite constitutional protections for free speech and robust debate. The facts presented in the CAP report directly challenge Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of National Guard deployments, highlighting an ongoing conflict between evidence-based research and the president’s public statements.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/trump-lawsuit-liberal-think-tank.html

Top Iran official says US focus on economic warfare shows it has failed militarily : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-08-21 06:42:00 — www.npr.org

Trump Threatens “Economic D-Day” Against Iran, Faces Pushback Over Effectiveness of Sanctions

President Trump has escalated his rhetoric against Iran, vowing on Truth Social to launch “the most crushing economic operation ever taken against any country” and urging U.S. allies to join in isolating the Iranian regime. Trump further warned, “ANY country that allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports, or government entities to provide any type of lifeline to Iran will itself face TREMENDOUS Economic Consequences.”

This hardline stance comes as diplomatic efforts to revive peace talks have collapsed and a 60-day memorandum of understanding to negotiate an end to the war has expired. The U.S. blockade remains in place, and Iran continues to restrict traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil shipping route.

Despite Trump’s threats, Iranian officials have dismissed his approach, arguing that years of U.S. sanctions have failed to achieve their aims. Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, said Trump’s threat of an “economic D-Day” was evidence that Washington could not prevail militarily, forcing a shift to economic and psychological warfare. Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, condemned the U.S. pivot to economic pressure as “economic terrorism” and suggested it was intended to distract from America’s own economic problems.

The Trump administration’s latest move, announced by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, includes plans for secondary sanctions targeting not just businesses but entire nations that do business with Iran. Bessent singled out China as the largest consumer of Iranian oil but declined to say whether China would be directly targeted. The threat of such sweeping sanctions has drawn criticism from China, which called for negotiations rather than pressure tactics.

Fact-checking Trump’s claims, the excerpt highlights that existing U.S. sanctions have already made much international trade with Iran impossible and that previous efforts have not led to the collapse of the Iranian regime. Iranian officials and independent analysts argue that hardliners in Iran are prepared to endure significant economic hardship to ensure the regime’s survival, casting doubt on the effectiveness of Trump’s promised “economic D-Day.”

Conclusion

President Trump’s aggressive economic threats against Iran mark a continuation of a strategy that, according to Iranian officials and outside experts, has failed to achieve its objectives. While Trump claims that unprecedented sanctions will force Iran’s collapse, the record shows that years of pressure have not produced the intended results, and the new threats risk further isolating the U.S. diplomatically. As the administration prepares to unveil more details, the world watches to see whether this approach will bring change—or simply deepen the standoff.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/21/nx-s1-5940610/iran-us-threat-economic-warfare

U.S. Citizen Who Deleted Phone’s Data Says His Prosecution Puts Privacy at Risk

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-08-21 04:02:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Administration Directive Expands Domestic Terrorism Definition, Raising Civil Liberties Concerns

A sweeping directive issued by President Trump last September, known as National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), has come under scrutiny after it expanded the definition of domestic terrorism to include crimes such as obstructing immigration enforcement. This policy shift is now at the center of a high-profile federal prosecution in Atlanta, where Samuel Tunick, a musician and activist, faces obstruction charges after erasing the contents of his phone during a customs search.

NSPM-7 and Its Impact

According to Tunick, he has been “ensnared by National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, or NSPM-7, a sweeping directive issued by President Trump last September that expanded the definition of domestic terrorism to include crimes like getting in the way of immigration enforcement.” This expansion has led to federal authorities charging individuals with destroying evidence, even when using privacy tools designed to protect personal data.

Criticism of the Trump Administration’s Approach

Tunick and his supporters argue that the Trump administration’s directive targets left-wing movements under what they call the “bogus pretense of domestic terrorism.” He describes the policy as “a direct attack on our First Amendment rights to free speech and free assembly.” The case has also highlighted concerns about warrantless surveillance and the broad authority granted to federal agencies to search electronic devices at the border.

Broader Implications for Privacy and Protest

The prosecution of Tunick, who was involved in the movement against the planned “Cop City” police and fire training center in Atlanta, is one of the earliest known instances of federal authorities charging a person for using privacy tools to wipe a device. Cybersecurity experts warn that such prosecutions send a chilling message that using privacy-focused software could be treated as criminal by default.

Conclusion

The Trump administration’s NSPM-7 directive has significantly broadened the scope of what federal authorities can classify as domestic terrorism, raising serious questions about civil liberties and the right to privacy. As cases like Tunick’s move through the courts, the debate continues over the balance between national security and fundamental constitutional rights.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/samuel-tunick-deleted-phone-felony.html

President Donald Trump appears on podcast of Michael Cohen

Politics — 2026-08-20 19:16:00 — www.washingtonpost.com

Trump Calls Criminal Cases ‘Political Weaponization’ in Reconciliation with Michael Cohen

President Donald Trump publicly reconciled Thursday with Michael Cohen, his former fixer who became a key prosecution witness against him, by calling into Cohen’s radio show and podcast. During the appearance, Trump argued that the criminal cases they once bitterly fought over were products of political weaponization. He used the platform to reprise familiar talking points about Iran and the economy.

Trump’s Claims of Political Weaponization

Trump’s central claim during the conversation was that the criminal cases brought against him are not legitimate legal actions, but rather politically motivated attacks. This assertion is consistent with his repeated public statements that investigations and prosecutions involving him are orchestrated by his political opponents to damage his reputation and candidacy.

Repetition of Talking Points on Iran and the Economy

In addition to discussing the legal cases, Trump used the opportunity to repeat well-worn talking points about Iran and the U.S. economy. While the excerpt does not provide specific details, Trump has a history of making exaggerated or misleading claims in these areas. For example, he has previously overstated the economic growth during his administration and misrepresented the impact of his policies on Iran.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Record

Trump’s assertion that the criminal cases are purely political lacks substantiation. Multiple investigations and indictments have been brought by independent prosecutors and grand juries, following standard legal procedures. While Trump frames these actions as partisan, the facts do not support the claim that they are solely motivated by politics.

Similarly, Trump’s economic and foreign policy claims have often been challenged by fact-checkers. His statements about record-breaking economic performance and unprecedented achievements on Iran have frequently been rated as exaggerations or falsehoods.

Conclusion: Familiar Patterns in Trump’s Rhetoric

Trump’s appearance on Michael Cohen’s show highlights his ongoing strategy of dismissing legal challenges as politically motivated and repeating familiar, often disputed, talking points. As he continues to face legal scrutiny, Trump’s pattern of making unsubstantiated claims and attacking the legitimacy of the process remains a central feature of his public response. Readers should approach these assertions with skepticism and rely on verified facts to assess the validity of Trump’s statements.

Source article

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/08/20/president-donald-trump-appears-podcast-michael-cohen/