SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us congress
Dems Introduce Bill to 'Stop Apparent Bribery Involving Trump Ballroom Donations'
"Billionaire companies are bankrolling Trump’s ballroom and it stinks of bribery," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Nov 18, 2025
Amid concerns over President Donald Trump's White House ballroom, a pair of Democratic US lawmakers on Tuesday introduced legislation "to root out apparent bribery and corruption" involving the $300 million project.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) introduced the Stop Ballroom Bribery Act, described by Warren's office as "the first piece of legislation addressing the ballroom that would impose donation restrictions."
“Billionaires and giant corporations with business in front of this administration are lining up to dump millions into Trump’s new ballroom—and Trump is showing them where to sign on the dotted line," Warren said in a statement. "Americans shouldn’t have to wonder whether President Trump is building a ballroom to facilitate a pay-to-play scheme for political favors. My new bill will put an end to what looks like bribery in plain sight."
Billionaire companies are bankrolling Trump’s ballroom and it stinks of bribery.That’s why @robertgarcia.house.gov and I introduced a bill to crack down on this potential corruption.
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Warren (@warren.senate.gov) November 18, 2025 at 11:16 AM
Garcia said: "Donald Trump is raising hundreds of millions of dollars to build himself a White House ballroom at a time when millions of American families can barely make ends meet. It's outrageous that the White House won’t reveal who’s bankrolling Trump’s pet project, and that the people’s house could be funded by shady figures, corrupt money, and bad actors."
"This bill will ban contributions from anyone with a conflict of interest, prevent bribery, and ensure we can hold any administration accountable for blatant corruption," he added.
Noting that many of the "wealthy individuals, corporations, and organizations" funding the ballroom "need something from the Trump administration," Warren's office flagged "serious concerns of quid-pro-quo arrangements and possible bribery."
"Ethics experts have argued that the apparent pay-to-play relationship between Trump and business leaders oversteps the norms of presidential behavior and could erode Americans’ trust in government," the senator's office added.
As Warren's office noted:
Key ballroom donors currently have business interests in front of the Trump administration. For example, Google, which recently donated $22 million to settle President Trump’s censorship lawsuit against YouTube, will benefit if Trump’s [Department of Justice] decides not to appeal a recent judicial ruling in a relevant antitrust case. Meanwhile, Union Pacific Railroad is seeking federal approval of a lucrative merger and Palantir is working to get more federal contracts.
The White House has refused to be fully transparent, publishing only a noncomprehensive donor list missing multiple key donors and offering donors anonymity. Donations for projects like the ballroom are often channeled through the National Park Service and philanthropic partners; nonprofits with formal ties to property used by the president and [Vice President JD Vance] raise unique conflict-of-interest risks when fundraising from individuals and corporations with interests in front of the federal government.
The Stop Ballroom Bribery Act would:
- Impose pre-donation restrictions, including banning contributions from entities and individuals that present a conflict of interest, make it clear that donations cannot be conditioned on receipt of benefits from the federal government, require congressional approval for foreign donations, and proscribe the president and other senior officials and their families from taking donations;
- Impose post-donation restrictions, including banning the display of donors’ names and logos, enact a two-year cooling-off period before a donor to a covered project can lobby the federal government, and prohibit conversion of leftover donated funds to anyone’s personal use or to benefit the president and other senior officials and their families;
- Require transparency, including the disclosure of any meetings with senior federal officials or their relatives within a year of the donation, and mandate National Park Service publication of all donations to covered projects and ban anonymous donations; and
- Enable enforcement, judicial review, and the pursuit of civil and criminal penalties for violators.
"President Trump's decision to unilaterally destroy the East Wing of the White House to build a ballroom financed by wealthy individuals and corporations not only ignores our country's laws but raises serious ethical concerns—namely, whether individuals and corporations funded this project in the hopes of buying access and influence," said Debra Perlin, vice president for policy at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which supports the legislation.
Virginia Canter, chief counsel and director for ethics and anticorruption at Democracy Defenders Action—another backer of the bill—said that "over the past year, President Trump has raised millions of dollars for vanity projects at the White House—like paving over the Rose Garden and demolishing the beloved East Wing."
"These funds have come from private donors without meaningful transparency or accountability,” Canter added. “The highest office in the land should never be for sale, nor should it ever appear to be."
Keep ReadingShow Less
What the Pearl Clutchers of Congress Can Learn From Pritzker’s List
Why are members of Congress, with so few exceptions, so short on ideas for fighting back against Trump's manifold abuses of power?
Nov 18, 2025
On October 23, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker filed an executive order establishing a state commission charged with recording abuses inflicted by federal agents sent to tyrannize the streets of Chicago during President Donald Trump’s tellingly named “Operation Midway Blitz.” The point of the new commission was to give the abused somewhere to go with their bruises, smashed windows, and shattered lives, and to compile evidence that could be brought to bear in checking the abuse, and perhaps even (at some point) punishing it.
It is this last point, not made explicit in the executive order, that I find so encouraging about Pritzker’s executive order. It puts the Trump administration on notice that their days of reckless self-indulgence are numbered and that a case against them is being compiled.
Not only does Pritzker’s List send a message. It gives people something, if only a very little thing, to do. It reminds the abused citizens of Chicago that they, not the camouflaged out-of-state goons patrolling their streets, are in charge, and that they have a personal role to play in taking those streets back.
All of which causes me to wonder: Where are the JB Pritzkers of Washington DC? Why are members of Congress, with so few exceptions, so short on ideas—good at “pearl clutching” in response to the president’s manifold abuses of power (here, for once, Donald Trump isn’t lying), but so clueless about fighting back? Where, for example, is the commission that Senate democrats have set up to compile evidence of criminal abuses of power in Pete Hegseth’s extrajudicial killings off the coasts of Columbia and Venezuela? How have they not gotten around to founding it?
Had someone with a backbone and big ideas taken the lead in DC, they might have come up with a plan that would both hit back at the Republicans for their cruelty and bring some real benefit to those affected by it.
In fact, dozens of such commissions are needed to collect evidence of criminal malfeasance, and to create a public record of the dates, times, and details of the crimes, from those working in the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, and so on. All have been dragooned into abusing rights, flouting the Constitution, and telling Trump’s lies. If nothing else, the very existence of such de facto grand juries, organized by elected officials and helped by the efforts and evidence of affected citizens, will put the Trump administration on notice that a case against it is being compiled.
But Democrats don’t operate this way. They tell us that the midterms are looming, that something good is bound to happen in a year’s time, so “Donate Now”—as if we had that kind of time to waste, and as if there were nothing that they should be doing for us, and with us, right now.
Evidence of the DC Democrats’ well-meaning incompetence was on full display in their recent handling of the government shutdown. To their credit, they did manage to make Donald Trump look mean-spirited (as if that needed emphasizing), but the final cave-in made them look weak and, yet again, satisfied with just getting by, without a plan. The whole initiative ended up imploding because it depended on saner heads prevailing among the Republicans, and that was never going to happen.
With no Pritzker in sight, the dearth of ideas really showed. Had someone with a backbone and big ideas taken the lead in DC, they might have come up with a plan that would both hit back at the Republicans for their cruelty and bring some real benefit to those affected by it. The federal healthcare subsidies were scheduled to expire. Given the Republicans’ determination to see them dead, they were beyond rescue. So why not let Republicans bake that poisoned cake, then force them to eat it!
Here's how it might have worked. Subsidies expire and healthcare costs soar. That’s entirely on them. As a counter move, and to actually help those in need, Democrats could have undertaken to set up funds (via a consortium of state-sponsored and charitable efforts) to help those affected deal with, and cover at least some of, their soaring costs. But, in doing so, they could also make clear up front that this aid is temporary, merely a stop-gap measure, and that the charitable subsidies will expire, say, six weeks before the midterm elections next fall. They would then assure those depending on these subsidies that further help is both wanted and can be expected after the elections, but only if those in the House and Senate who supported Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” are voted out of office—“Oh, and here, by the way,” they would add, “are the names of those who voted for it.”
Now that would be hardball! But DC Democrats have nothing like this up their sleeve. They are quicker to tell you why any such plan could never work than to come up with one that can. But there are some out there, such as Pritzker with his list, who are writing a new playbook, one to “get going on” right now, based on fighting back, getting things done, and giving Trump and his conspiracy of fools far more to worry about than they can handle.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress, Don't Shield Big Oil From Accountability
As city leaders from across the US gather this week to discuss our collective priorities, let’s reaffirm our commitment to protect access to the courts for all our communities.
Nov 18, 2025
As local leaders from across the country gather in Salt Lake City this week for the annual National League of Cities conference to advocate for the interests of local governments, the challenges of protecting and preparing our communities for the future are clearer than ever. Local governments and their taxpayers are being stretched thin. Between the rising cost of living, increasingly severe weather disasters, escalating maintenance costs, and other expenses, local leaders like us in Colorado, Wisconsin, and beyond are having to make tough decisions about our priorities—and the last thing we need is to have the tools at our disposal taken away from us.
And yet, there is a campaign in Congress right now that aims to do just that.
Goliaths of industry, including pesticide and oil companies, have been lobbying Congress for legal liability shields that would block communities from holding them accountable in court for any of their bad actions. No matter your politics, we should all agree that it’s dangerous and wrong to hand any industry a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card.
Bayer, the maker of Roundup, is asking Congress to put an end to the lawsuits the megacorporation is facing for the health harms its product has caused for years—and some lawmakers are actually pushing legislation that would do so.
Broad legal shields for entire industries would not only threaten local governments’ ability to pursue accountability, but also violate a core value of our justice system.
Similarly, lobbyists for oil and gas companies are lobbying federal lawmakers for a legal shield that could effectively put the fossil fuel industry above the law and block dozens of state and local lawsuits the companies are currently facing for deceiving the public about how their products’ fuel climate change. Municipalities in Colorado, one of our home states, are among the communities demanding that Big Oil companies pay their fair share of the climate costs taxpayers are now facing to adapt to an increasingly severe climate. Like tobacco and opioid companies, fossil fuel companies have long known their products were dangerous, but pushed disinformation to cover up the evidence and protect their profits, while our communities pay the price.
Plainly, our right to access the courts is under attack. Local leaders understand the power that comes from being able to access the courts, which is why the National League of Cities—which represents more than 2,700 cities across the country—has a standing commitment to oppose any federal legal shield that would undermine municipalities’ authority to bring affirmative litigation.
These attacks on our right to access the courts cannot stand. Broad legal shields for entire industries would not only threaten local governments’ ability to pursue accountability, but also violate a core value of our justice system. When bad actors lie to the public and cause harm in our communities, the legal system is supposed to serve as a fair venue—where arguments and evidence are considered—but that system is not possible when you take away our ability to present arguments and evidence at all.
Imagine if Big Tobacco or opioid manufacturers had secured legal immunity from Congress—communities decimated by cancer and addiction would never have been able to fund treatment centers and public health campaigns without first filing accountability lawsuits only made possible through access to the justice system.
As city leaders from across the US gather this week to discuss our collective priorities, let’s reaffirm our commitment to protect access to the courts for all our communities and speak with one voice across party lines to ensure that our congressional representatives do the same.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular