So his cabinet members get sued for it and then they can sue him. But, there are so many obvious other situations that are probably easier (not to be understood as easy) to be pursued, like the coins and Liberty mutual or even the insider trading…either way, we claw back 100% of his illegal enrichment will render him penniless anyway.
This BS memo that was drafted years ago to deal with an entirely different issue was not codified in law. We will need to be prepared to deal with him before 2028!
I am not a lawyer and therefore have no professional knowledge of the law. So, I will leave open whether or not it is legal to renovate the White House single-handedly. What I have understood, however, is that law and morality are two different things. To stick to the latter: if you have the privilege of living in a house that is your property, whether it concerns yourself or the President of the United States, you treat that house with restraint and care. That is simply a sign of respect for someone else's property. Single-handedly demolishing part of the White House demonstrates yet again that Donald Trump is a disrespectful person. November 3rd cannot come soon enough.
It's not legal to do what he did. That's one reason the appellate court issued the injunction. The real question is, what do we do next? How do we fix this? How do we make things right with the east wing and/or complete the ballroom that nobody wants but probably needs to be finished?
Probably. What might happen is Congress may authorize an independent third-party contractor to send out bids and coordinate the completion in a way that complements a balance between taxpayer best interest and maintaining existing architecture. Architectural design with the White House and former East Wing. The gaudy gold-plated Mar-a-Lago style design just doesn't belong in the people's house.
I really appreciate your legal analysis, though as a layperson from the other side of the world (Australia), I don’t always comprehend it fully. Nevertheless I congratulate you on your in-depth assessments. I could not believe finding out that the orange narcissistic stain on humanity had actually demolished the east wing of the White House, it made my mind boggle! How could this happen? We would never tolerate such a thing here at home. To me this is a moral question firstly and then a legal one. How dare he destroy public property for his own vanity? But unfortunately this is only one of a great number of morally questionable actions undertaken by this horrible man. I shake my head every day over the events happening under this presidency and the horrible impacts on your country and also the rest of the world. I hope November brings the necessary change to reel it in.
Thanks, Stella. It happens when you've got people around you who ask how high when you tell them to jump. It's what we call in the legal profession, a real "shit show" but we'll get it fixed in the midterms.
Well said Stella. I needed your comment as an anchor to pull together my thoughts on this...and got help from Claude to really pull things together, imho. Maybe this will help others, or produce some good counter points:
Character Is Not a Safeguard: Why Democracy Needs Structural Constraints, Not Just Trust in Decency
It is tempting to assume that basic human decency — a baseline respect for the people one is elected to serve — will restrain those in power from causing harm. History and recent events show this assumption is false. Ego, arrogance, and extreme wealth, when combined with the protections of high office and an enabling legislative majority, do not produce self-restraint. They produce the opposite: a sense of impunity.
Why "decency" fails as a safeguard
Democratic systems have historically relied on informal norms — decorum, public shame, personal ethics — to constrain officeholders. But norms only work on people who value them. A leader who is indifferent to public shame, insulated by wealth from personal financial consequence, and shielded by legal protections tied to their office has little practical incentive to behave decently. Norms are voluntary; they bind only the already-willing.
Why enabling majorities compound the problem
A single bad actor with power is a containable risk. A bad actor whose party controls the legislature is a systemic one. When a majority in Congress declines to exercise oversight — blocking investigations, refusing to enforce subpoenas, or treating accountability as a partisan loyalty test — the checks written into the Constitution stop functioning as checks. The Constitution's separation of powers assumes that each branch will jealously guard its own authority and hold the others accountable, regardless of party. When that assumption breaks down, the formal structure remains, but its function does not.
The case for explicit, hard constraints
A practical argument for writing character-agnostic safeguards into law rather than relying on the good faith of officeholders:
Automatic, non-discretionary enforcement mechanisms — remedies that trigger on defined facts (financial disclosures, conflict-of-interest violations, obstruction) rather than requiring a hostile Congress to act.
Removal of official immunities that shield personal conduct — narrowing protections meant for official acts so they cannot be stretched to cover self-dealing or criminal conduct.
Binding financial transparency and divestment requirements for the presidency and Congress, closing the gap that currently relies on voluntary compliance.
Independent, insulated oversight bodies (inspectors general, ethics offices) with enforcement power that doesn't depend on the sitting majority's cooperation.
The underlying principle
Laws exist precisely because virtue can't be legislated but conduct can. The Constitution's framers understood this in part —i.e. separation of powers — but they underestimated how thoroughly informal norms could be abandoned by a sufficiently motivated faction. The fix isn't to demand better character from officeholders; it's to design a system that produces accountable outcomes even when officeholders have none.
Trump & Co corruption, grifting & self enrichment is epic: A bank closed Trump accounts for ‘Anti-Money Laundering Reasons.’ So now Trump & Co gives Trump & Co… a bank? Just another measure of the president's staggering corruption that preliminary approval of an application for a charter by Trump’s crypto firm is just another story. Trump money laundering, extortion, fraud, weaponization of government against critics…? The Trump brand. Trump & Co corruption & criminality is epic. The projection of Trump & Co propaganda & criminality onto critics never stops. https://the1a.org/segments/if-you-can-keep-it-how-trumps-getting-rich-as-president/
As I write in the article, the funding issue is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the legal right to destroy the East Wing and build a ballroom.
In theory, but is the "private" funding even legal? Only Congress can appropriate funds, and last I checked, the White House (time to call it something else, like the People's House) still belongs as a federal property, not trump property.
See the discussion in the article around 18 U.S.C. §1361: Destruction or Depredation of Government Property (very hard to prove by a motivated prosecutor, much less one that has no interest in holding this guy responsible for anything)
If—and this is a big if—we can overcome all these statutory and case law hurdles:
How long will he live after 1/20/29? Will his mental acuity (frontal temporal dementia) be finally raised as a possible defense? Can these claims be pursued against his estate?
I'm sorry to say that I don't think these claims can be pursued against him right now. For all the reasons mentioned in the article, including immunity and related defense theories, recourse appears to be against agencies involved as opposed to him personally. So no, I don't see his estate on the hook for anything. But when he's gone, it will be a win for not only America but the rest of the world.
Amen. It would be a grave injustice if he, given how unlawful his acts related to the property of the sovereign, cannot be pursued. Me thinks, anyone else who would destroy or desecrate federal property and/or park would be in custody right now. What a grotesque situation America finds itself in right NOW.
And... currently there is no bunker, no building, and the property is in shambles. I would NOT be in favor of forcing him to complete construction as 1) it would not suit the historic WH style, 2) he lacks the skills to build anything with integrity, (compare his wanting to paint the granite Eisenhower Executive Office Building white), and 3) his motivation would be to pad the bill and pocket the majority (as has been his MO all his adult life).
I'm not sure what happens next. Let's see what the Supreme Court decides because that decides all further options. If the Supreme Court decides not to get involved and Congress doesn't approve construction or financing as is, the next best option may be to get independent third-party construction trustee/contractor involved to get things fixed while following the law and protecting the Taxpayer money.
Just happened to read something that caused me to do some searching ... it seems (?) that during the Obama Administration the bunker/command center was updated extensively. Understandable because on 9/11 it proved to be insufficient. (BTW, they didn't need to tear down the East wing, nor felt the need to brag about it.) Wondering if the bunker is a ruse to get a guilded ballroom for the Trump Family for several lifetimes, since apparently he has no plans to leave the WH, AND a safe place to go when they try to drag his ass out of there.
Seems like trump wants his version of the Berghof and Eagles Nest
So his cabinet members get sued for it and then they can sue him. But, there are so many obvious other situations that are probably easier (not to be understood as easy) to be pursued, like the coins and Liberty mutual or even the insider trading…either way, we claw back 100% of his illegal enrichment will render him penniless anyway.
This BS memo that was drafted years ago to deal with an entirely different issue was not codified in law. We will need to be prepared to deal with him before 2028!
I am not a lawyer and therefore have no professional knowledge of the law. So, I will leave open whether or not it is legal to renovate the White House single-handedly. What I have understood, however, is that law and morality are two different things. To stick to the latter: if you have the privilege of living in a house that is your property, whether it concerns yourself or the President of the United States, you treat that house with restraint and care. That is simply a sign of respect for someone else's property. Single-handedly demolishing part of the White House demonstrates yet again that Donald Trump is a disrespectful person. November 3rd cannot come soon enough.
It's not legal to do what he did. That's one reason the appellate court issued the injunction. The real question is, what do we do next? How do we fix this? How do we make things right with the east wing and/or complete the ballroom that nobody wants but probably needs to be finished?
Not that you need my approval, but your analysis looks (sadly) flawless to me.
It appears as though the best The People can expect is a presidential hand slap, and they are just going to have to be satisfied with that.
That leaves a hole in the ground that will need to be addressed somehow. Probably with a ballroom?
Probably. What might happen is Congress may authorize an independent third-party contractor to send out bids and coordinate the completion in a way that complements a balance between taxpayer best interest and maintaining existing architecture. Architectural design with the White House and former East Wing. The gaudy gold-plated Mar-a-Lago style design just doesn't belong in the people's house.
Is he building his crypt?
No, but I wish you would someplace.
Very helpful.
It was interesting doing the research and putting the piece together. Thanks.
I really appreciate your legal analysis, though as a layperson from the other side of the world (Australia), I don’t always comprehend it fully. Nevertheless I congratulate you on your in-depth assessments. I could not believe finding out that the orange narcissistic stain on humanity had actually demolished the east wing of the White House, it made my mind boggle! How could this happen? We would never tolerate such a thing here at home. To me this is a moral question firstly and then a legal one. How dare he destroy public property for his own vanity? But unfortunately this is only one of a great number of morally questionable actions undertaken by this horrible man. I shake my head every day over the events happening under this presidency and the horrible impacts on your country and also the rest of the world. I hope November brings the necessary change to reel it in.
Thanks, Stella. It happens when you've got people around you who ask how high when you tell them to jump. It's what we call in the legal profession, a real "shit show" but we'll get it fixed in the midterms.
Well said Stella. I needed your comment as an anchor to pull together my thoughts on this...and got help from Claude to really pull things together, imho. Maybe this will help others, or produce some good counter points:
Character Is Not a Safeguard: Why Democracy Needs Structural Constraints, Not Just Trust in Decency
It is tempting to assume that basic human decency — a baseline respect for the people one is elected to serve — will restrain those in power from causing harm. History and recent events show this assumption is false. Ego, arrogance, and extreme wealth, when combined with the protections of high office and an enabling legislative majority, do not produce self-restraint. They produce the opposite: a sense of impunity.
Why "decency" fails as a safeguard
Democratic systems have historically relied on informal norms — decorum, public shame, personal ethics — to constrain officeholders. But norms only work on people who value them. A leader who is indifferent to public shame, insulated by wealth from personal financial consequence, and shielded by legal protections tied to their office has little practical incentive to behave decently. Norms are voluntary; they bind only the already-willing.
Why enabling majorities compound the problem
A single bad actor with power is a containable risk. A bad actor whose party controls the legislature is a systemic one. When a majority in Congress declines to exercise oversight — blocking investigations, refusing to enforce subpoenas, or treating accountability as a partisan loyalty test — the checks written into the Constitution stop functioning as checks. The Constitution's separation of powers assumes that each branch will jealously guard its own authority and hold the others accountable, regardless of party. When that assumption breaks down, the formal structure remains, but its function does not.
The case for explicit, hard constraints
A practical argument for writing character-agnostic safeguards into law rather than relying on the good faith of officeholders:
Automatic, non-discretionary enforcement mechanisms — remedies that trigger on defined facts (financial disclosures, conflict-of-interest violations, obstruction) rather than requiring a hostile Congress to act.
Removal of official immunities that shield personal conduct — narrowing protections meant for official acts so they cannot be stretched to cover self-dealing or criminal conduct.
Binding financial transparency and divestment requirements for the presidency and Congress, closing the gap that currently relies on voluntary compliance.
Independent, insulated oversight bodies (inspectors general, ethics offices) with enforcement power that doesn't depend on the sitting majority's cooperation.
The underlying principle
Laws exist precisely because virtue can't be legislated but conduct can. The Constitution's framers understood this in part —i.e. separation of powers — but they underestimated how thoroughly informal norms could be abandoned by a sufficiently motivated faction. The fix isn't to demand better character from officeholders; it's to design a system that produces accountable outcomes even when officeholders have none.
Well explained, thank you for your comprehensive response. Much appreciated.
…i made this in december 2024
Trump & Co corruption, grifting & self enrichment is epic: A bank closed Trump accounts for ‘Anti-Money Laundering Reasons.’ So now Trump & Co gives Trump & Co… a bank? Just another measure of the president's staggering corruption that preliminary approval of an application for a charter by Trump’s crypto firm is just another story. Trump money laundering, extortion, fraud, weaponization of government against critics…? The Trump brand. Trump & Co corruption & criminality is epic. The projection of Trump & Co propaganda & criminality onto critics never stops. https://the1a.org/segments/if-you-can-keep-it-how-trumps-getting-rich-as-president/
Same thought went through my mind. I mean, really?
What a mess!
Question: If only half of the construction is being paid forprivately, , Congress could hold up funding the rest
As I write in the article, the funding issue is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the legal right to destroy the East Wing and build a ballroom.
In theory, but is the "private" funding even legal? Only Congress can appropriate funds, and last I checked, the White House (time to call it something else, like the People's House) still belongs as a federal property, not trump property.
Thank You Mitch. Another fine analysis of the impenetrable situation. Is there still a secure bunker under there?
Thanks Mitch. This was helpful since I had no exposure to any of those details. A lot to think about. See my reply in "Stella" above if you have time.
If the President acts in deliberate violation of his oath is he acting under the color of law?
See the discussion in the article around 18 U.S.C. §1361: Destruction or Depredation of Government Property (very hard to prove by a motivated prosecutor, much less one that has no interest in holding this guy responsible for anything)
If—and this is a big if—we can overcome all these statutory and case law hurdles:
How long will he live after 1/20/29? Will his mental acuity (frontal temporal dementia) be finally raised as a possible defense? Can these claims be pursued against his estate?
Thank you, Mitch!
I'm sorry to say that I don't think these claims can be pursued against him right now. For all the reasons mentioned in the article, including immunity and related defense theories, recourse appears to be against agencies involved as opposed to him personally. So no, I don't see his estate on the hook for anything. But when he's gone, it will be a win for not only America but the rest of the world.
Amen. It would be a grave injustice if he, given how unlawful his acts related to the property of the sovereign, cannot be pursued. Me thinks, anyone else who would destroy or desecrate federal property and/or park would be in custody right now. What a grotesque situation America finds itself in right NOW.
And... currently there is no bunker, no building, and the property is in shambles. I would NOT be in favor of forcing him to complete construction as 1) it would not suit the historic WH style, 2) he lacks the skills to build anything with integrity, (compare his wanting to paint the granite Eisenhower Executive Office Building white), and 3) his motivation would be to pad the bill and pocket the majority (as has been his MO all his adult life).
I'm not sure what happens next. Let's see what the Supreme Court decides because that decides all further options. If the Supreme Court decides not to get involved and Congress doesn't approve construction or financing as is, the next best option may be to get independent third-party construction trustee/contractor involved to get things fixed while following the law and protecting the Taxpayer money.
Just happened to read something that caused me to do some searching ... it seems (?) that during the Obama Administration the bunker/command center was updated extensively. Understandable because on 9/11 it proved to be insufficient. (BTW, they didn't need to tear down the East wing, nor felt the need to brag about it.) Wondering if the bunker is a ruse to get a guilded ballroom for the Trump Family for several lifetimes, since apparently he has no plans to leave the WH, AND a safe place to go when they try to drag his ass out of there.