No limits
Sarah K. Burris, Alternet
![]() |
| Trump's Statue of Fascism |
The oral arguments Friday deal with who has the right to sue
over the destruction of the White House. Matthew Russell Lee, who runs "Inner City Press," was
live-posting the back and forth. Among the first things he quoted the DOJ as
saying was, "There is an aspect of self-inflicted harm here."
But all arguments about the size, appeal or funding of the
ballroom don't matter because the DOJ claims the case doesn't have standing to
begin with.
![]() |
| Trump's new plans for the White House |
The exchange came from Judge Patricia Millett, who
questioned, "If the government decides very quickly to bulldoze the Statue
of Liberty, the people whose ancestors — that was the first thing they saw
coming to this country, but the government moved too fast — nothing can be
done?"
The DOJ agreed.
During the government shutdown, Americans watched in horror
as large machinery tore into the historic building. The National Trust for
Historic Preservation sued the Trump administration in
an effort to block construction of a 90,000-square-foot structure.
They argue that the project moved ahead without the required public review and approvals. In their court filing, the group said that no president has the right to tear down part of the White House or build a ballroom on public land without giving the public a chance to weigh in, and that the administration should have gone through the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts long before demolition began.
A federal judge already put a hold on the building until
Congress could weigh in. Trump claimed that because the funds were being raised
through private donors, Congress had no role in the matter. Not long after, Trump
asked Congress for $1 billion for the project.
The court battle has become a larger fight over whether
Trump, or any president, can treat the White House grounds as a personal
private canvas for their own projects. Former first ladies like
Michelle Obama and Jill Biden have denounced it, saying that the building is
the "people's house" and that their family upheld that belief in
their treatment of it.

