Let Them Build Ballrooms

Let Them Build Ballrooms

Trump as the New Marie Antoinette: A Presidency of Extravagance and Entitlement

By Vic Gerami

Marie Antoinette became a symbol of arrogance and excess, remembered for her detachment from the suffering of her people. Donald Trump’s conduct in office mirrors that same spirit of privilege and indulgence. From a $200 million ballroom at the White House to taxpayer-funded travel, foreign entanglements, and now a demand for more than $200 million in public money to cover his personal legal fees, his administration embodies opulence at the expense of public trust.

The $200 Million White House Ballroom

While millions of Americans struggle with rising costs and uncertainty, Trump has moved forward with plans to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom at the White House. The project, estimated to cost around $200 million, is being funded by private donors, many of whom represent major corporations with active government contracts. The ballroom will reportedly accommodate up to 900 guests and will require the demolition of portions of the East Wing, which houses offices for the First Lady and senior staff.

Construction is scheduled to begin in late 2025. White House tours have already been suspended to accommodate the project. The administration claims the new ballroom is a “gift to the American people,” yet many see it as a monument to Trump’s vanity. Reports from Reuters, The Guardian, and People Magazine highlight the project’s timing, which coincides with government budget crises and furloughed workers. The symbolism of a lavish private entertainment hall in the middle of political and economic instability has led critics to call it Trump’s “Let them build ballrooms” moment.

Public Office as a Profit Stream

Throughout his presidency, Trump has blurred the line between governance and personal business. He spent a large portion of his term at his own properties, resulting in an estimated $64 million in taxpayer expenses for travel and security, according to The Washington Post. The Secret Service was repeatedly billed for lodging at Trump-owned hotels and resorts, sometimes at rates several times higher than federal per diems.

Trump also attempted to host the 2020 G7 Summit at his Doral resort in Florida but reversed the plan after bipartisan outrage and warnings about conflicts of interest. The episode revealed how deeply intertwined his personal finances and public office have become.

Now, Trump has requested that more than $200 million in taxpayer funds be used to cover his mounting personal legal bills. The proposal, criticized by ethics watchdogs and bipartisan lawmakers, would effectively shift the cost of his legal defense from his campaign and donors to the public. For many Americans struggling to pay rent, mortgages, and medical bills, the idea that public funds could bankroll a president’s private legal fights underscores the growing disconnect between Trump’s sense of entitlement and the realities of those he governs.

Foreign Money and Influence

Despite the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against accepting gifts or payments from foreign states, Trump’s businesses have received millions from foreign governments. A 2024 House Oversight Committee report found at least $7.8 million in payments from countries including China, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar during his presidency. These transactions often coincided with key diplomatic events and policy decisions, raising questions about foreign influence and national integrity.

The Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. became a hub for foreign delegations, lobbyists, and political donors. What was once intended as a neutral government space turned into a marketplace for influence, where proximity to presidential power could be bought by anyone who could afford a suite or banquet reservation.

The Qatar Jet Controversy

Reports have surfaced that during Trump’s current term as president, he accepted the use of, or favorable arrangements involving, a private jet valued at approximately $400 million from interests linked to Qatar. While official disclosures remain limited, multiple ethics watchdogs and foreign policy analysts have called for transparency regarding the transaction and whether it violates federal ethics or emoluments laws. Qatar, a nation with significant defense contracts and diplomatic interests in the United States, has long been associated with high-profile investments to build influence in Washington. The alleged arrangement raises serious concerns about conflicts of interest and the potential for foreign governments to gain leverage through personal or financial favors.

Optics of Indulgence

Symbolism matters in politics. The new White House ballroom, like the tennis pavilion unveiled during the COVID-19 crisis, reinforces Trump’s image as a leader disconnected from everyday Americans. The continued use of his Mar-a-Lago estate for personal retreats, protected by taxpayer-funded security details, further adds to the perception of privilege. Each act of extravagance, each indulgence justified as a gift or improvement, widens the gap between Trump’s self-image and the responsibilities of public office.

The Real Cost

The true cost of this behavior extends far beyond the millions in taxpayer money or the ethics questions raised. It erodes faith in public institutions and normalizes corruption and entitlement at the highest levels of government. When a leader treats the presidency as a personal brand, the people lose faith in the idea of government as a public trust.

Marie Antoinette never actually said “let them eat cake,” but the phrase has come to represent an attitude of indifference toward those suffering under poor leadership. Trump’s $200 million ballroom, his request for public money to pay his legal bills, his foreign dealings, and his pattern of using public office for private gain form a modern echo of that arrogance. The legacy he builds will not be one of service or reform but of gilded walls, foreign favors, and a ballroom built while the nation struggles.

Sources: The Washington Post, Reuters, The Guardian, People Magazine, Associated Press, House Oversight Committee reports, and investigations by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)