Trump Majorly Flips Out as Judges Rule His Ballroom Is Illegal

President Donald Trump is seriously crashing out after a federal appeals court ordered him to stop illegal construction on his White House ballroom. 

In a furious screed on Truth Social Friday, Trump announced that he would immediately appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. 

“The Military and Secret Service are viewing this horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful ruling as a National Security threat to our Nation in that the entire Complex is being built for the protection of our Country and, additionally, all future Presidents,” the president wrote.

Trump described his plans to build “one big, expensive, and very complex unit” that includes a state of the art hospital, bomb shelter, and a top secret military facility—well, not so secret anymore, I’d gather. 

In a 2-1 ruling earlier Friday, a  D.C. Circuit Court panel determined the Trump administration must seek approval for construction from Congress, which has the “exclusive authority to regulate the construction and demolition of White House structures.”

“At this preliminary stage, the National Trust has shown, compellingly, that Congress has not ceded unfettered authority to the Executive Branch to dramatically redesign, reshape, and reconstruct the White House—the People’s House—to fit a particular President’s desires,” the ruling stated. 

Trump-appointed Judge Neomi Rao dissented, agreeing with the administration that the National Trust for Historic Preservation did not have the standing to challenge the construction. The nonprofit’s case was centered around Professor Alison Hoagland, a member of the National Trust, who formally claimed that the ballroom was an aesthetic injury to the White House. 

Rao argued that the decision would “permit adjudication of any government action that a plaintiff finds unsightly.” But by the judge’s logic, the Trump administration could make unilateral sweeping changes to any national landmark—even, as the DOJ tried to claim, the Statue of Liberty. 

For months, Trump has treated the White House—which belongs to all Americans, not just the president—like one of his gaudy resort properties. 

Meanwhile, the price tag on Trump’s ballroom has exploded. The president originally claimed that his ballroom project would only cost $200 million, but that number later ballooned to $300 million, and then $400 million after he decided to tack on extra construction. In June, a bombshell report revealed that taxpayers would be expected to foot the bill for half of a $600 million total cost.

This story has been updated.

President Trump correctly identified Americans’ mass dissatisfaction with the GOP—but doesn’t think that it extends to him.

“The question is will they vote? ’Cause a lot of them are very angry at Republicans, to be honest with you.… They’re not angry at me, but they are angry at Republicans,” Trump told Punchbowl News in an interview released on Friday.

“I could do a lot easier. I don’t have to be away in Nevada yesterday. I didn’t have to be in Los Angeles yesterday making speeches. I didn’t have to be supporting all the people. I have a lot, you know, I have a busy schedule,” he continued. “I said to somebody, ‘Wait a minute. You don’t understand. I won. I’m not campaigning.’”

The voters are mad at him too. The president’s approval rating is just under 40 percent, as nearly 60 percent think that he specifically is doing a bad job of governing. And the issues that people feel most upset by—the war on Iran, inflation, affordability—are directly tied to President Trump, even if he doesn’t seem to think so.

This is an incredibly negative message for the leader of the Republican Party to be sending out less than 90 days before a midterm election in which many expect Republicans to lose. Maybe that’s the point—getting out ahead of getting blamed for losing control of Congress by distancing yourself from your own party.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro isn’t the only one fed up with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

Staffers at the Department of the Interior are frustrated with Burgum’s culture of secrecy, toxic leadership team, and utter disregard for career officials, Politico reported Friday.

Interior officials have been spotted routinely shredding documents and using disappearing Signal messages in order to prevent their communications from being preserved, three staffers told Politico. Destroying official communications is a violation of the Federal Records Act.

“They’re terrified of written records,” one former official told Politico.

Early on, Burgum had even inquired about trying to add a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF, on the department’s sixth floor, even though there was already one just three floors down.

Since Burgum came in, the Interior Department has shrunk by nearly 14 percent. Among the thousands of employees who have fled are top-ranking officials, including William Doffermyre, the Interior’s Senate-confirmed solicitor; Adam Sluess, senior counselor; Wynn Radford, chief of staff; Matt Schafle, congressional affairs director; and Leslie Beyer, who departed just months after being confirmed as assistant secretary for land minerals management.

Three former Interior officials attributed their decision to leave—at least partly—to JoDee Hanson, Burgum’s chief of staff. Hanson’s behavior has caused her subordinates to cry, multiple former officials told Politico.

“The way that she managed the politicals in that building contributed to me leaving,” one ex-official told Politico.

Tony Irish, a 20-plus-year veteran of the Interior Department, told Politico that it was “abundantly clear” that Burgum did not value the opinions of career staffers.

“Burgum appears to combine arrogance with an utter lack of curiosity or humility to seek out the advice of people who have dedicated their professional careers to [Interior’s] objectives,” Irish said. “I think it shows his disdain for the rank and file.”

With all the blatant mismanagement, is it any surprise that Burgum’s efforts to mount a case against alleged vandals at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool imploded so spectacularly?

Senator Bill Cassidy has decided to vote to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, despite butting heads with the Trump administration in recent weeks.

Cassidy had voiced concerns over President Donald Trump’s $1.776 billion slush fund, and was discussing the vote with his Republican colleague Senator Lisa Murkowski up until Friday morning. Murkowski and Maine Senator Susan Collins had decided to vote “no,” but Cassidy gave in to Trump even though he lost his Senate primary after the president endorsed Cassidy’s opponent.

“Mr. Blanche is not perfect, and he will tell you this. But the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general who may not run the department effectively under President Trump, and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche,” Cassidy said on the Senate floor Friday while reading haltingly from prepared remarks. “This puts at risk the progress made in fighting violent crime, human and drug trafficking, and fraud.

“All considered, I will vote for Mr. Blanche. I will be criticized for this vote. What’s new?”

In addition to the slush fund, Blanche has come under fire for his handling of the Epstein files rollout, including shoddily redacting the available files, refusing to release more files, and dismissal of the victims. Several of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims had repeatedly sought to speak with Cassidy prior to his vote, but neither he nor his staff followed up, making his mention of stopping human trafficking ring hollow.

Last week, Cassidy also helped vote down an amendment that would have killed Trump’s IRS immunity deal. Even on his way out of the Senate, Cassidy seems unwilling to break with Trump or MAGA, and this vote ranks with his confirmation vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in its spinelessness.

This story has been updated.

The federal government provided false information in its attempt to prosecute independent journalist Georgia Fort, her lawyers say.

The Guardian reports that in court filings, Fort’s attorneys argue that federal prosecutors are trying to build a case against her over her coverage of a protest at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, in January. Fort’s team is asking for the case to be dismissed.

The administration has charged nearly 40 people, including Fort and former CNN anchor Don Lemon, over the protest, which centered on the fact that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent serves as a pastor for the congregation.

In at least 15 search warrant applications, Homeland Security Investigations said that Fort was chanting with protesters when they entered the church, a claim that the Department of Justice later admitted was false. Prosecutors tried to argue that the mistake wasn’t consequential because it wasn’t mentioned in Fort’s indictment.

Fort’s lawyers want more information about what prosecutors told the federal grand jury before it decided to indict the journalist, because they could have mentioned other false details.

“It is clear to me that in this case the government in many respects, candidly, has gone off the rails,” Matthew Ebert, one of Fort’s lawyers, said at a July 24 court hearing. “If the government is confused and can’t keep its story straight about the evidence in a 39-defendant case and incorrectly and repeatedly lumps my client, a journalist, together incorrectly with the conduct of others who were engaged in a protest, if they can’t keep it straight, all the more reason I’m concerned about what they said to the grand jury.”

After that hearing, Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko ordered federal prosecutors to turn over all grand jury proceedings related to Fort, as well as another journalist, Michael Beute.

Fort’s lawyers also have objections to federal investigators trying to access Fort’s reporting. A judge has rejected two attempts by investigators to get her work, noting that they seemed to have forgotten the Privacy Protection Act, which protects journalists from being forced to turn over their work to authorities.

The government has tried to gain access to Fort’s social media accounts too, including the names and contact information of her subscribers. When a judge put a stop to that, the government tried to use customs summonses. Those attempts are controversial in that the government won’t admit in writing what information it has obtained or whether it is continuing to use those summonses, suggesting that prosecutors are either trying to hide something, or they know that the government’s activities might not be legal.