National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation

0:05 [SPEAKER_03]: Hey everyone, this is Leon from Prologue Projects. [SPEAKER_03]: On this week's episode of 5-4, Peter, Reannon, and Michael are talking about National Park Service V, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. [SPEAKER_03]: Folks, we are talking ballrooms. [SPEAKER_03]: In October of 2025, Donald Trump ordered the demolition of the White House's historic East Wing, to make room for a 90,000 square foot ballroom, and underneath the military bunker.

0:33 [SPEAKER_03]: To try and stop construction on the ballroom, the National Trust for Historic Reservation filed a lawsuit on behalf of one of their volunteers. [SPEAKER_03]: They argued that Trump couldn't build his ballroom without congressional approval. [SPEAKER_03]: that their volunteer in architectural historian would suffer professional and personal injuries if the ballroom were constructed.

0:51 [SPEAKER_03]: In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court granted an emergency request by the Trump administration, ruling that the National Trust for Historic Preservation did not have standing to sue, and allowing construction to continue of the case moves through the courts. [SPEAKER_03]: This is five to four, a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks.

1:13 [SPEAKER_04]: Welcome to five to four where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have left our civil rights. [SPEAKER_04]: We can dilapidate it like Michael's immune system. [SPEAKER_04]: I'm here with Pete. [SPEAKER_04]: I'm here with Reannon. [SPEAKER_04]: Hey, everybody. [SPEAKER_04]: And Michael.

1:34 [SPEAKER_04]: Hey, you doing, buddy? [SPEAKER_04]: Better, better. [SPEAKER_02]: I was pretty sick. [SPEAKER_02]: I had a big weekend. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_02]: Saturday night. [SPEAKER_02]: I'm in Charleston. [SPEAKER_01]: OK. [SPEAKER_02]: I've been drinking all day. [SPEAKER_02]: I've been at anything to eat since 1pm except some mushrooms and chocolate.

1:52 [SPEAKER_02]: It's like chocolate, chocolate by mushrooms and it's like 10.30 and with these two girls that I don't really know. [SPEAKER_04]: Oh my god, man. [SPEAKER_02]: and we're trying to get an Uber to another bar. [SPEAKER_02]: Sure. [SPEAKER_02]: And this girl's like, oh, that's our Uber. [SPEAKER_02]: And this black escalade tinted windows.

2:10 [SPEAKER_02]: So I was like, oh, she opted for Uber Black or whatever, like, fancy. [SPEAKER_02]: I walk over. [SPEAKER_02]: I open the door. [SPEAKER_02]: I put one foot in and go for Samantha. [SPEAKER_02]: you know, making sure it's our Uber. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_02]: And the driver turns to me and says, I'm fucking police get the fuck out of my car.

2:31 [SPEAKER_02]: And I see that it is an unmarked car, but not a plainclothes police officer. [SPEAKER_02]: He's in uniform. [SPEAKER_01]: He's in uniform inside those tinted windows. [SPEAKER_02]: He's got the tack vest on, you know, over the uniform. [SPEAKER_02]: He looks like he's going to tear my head off.

2:44 [SPEAKER_01]: Why are his doors unlocked? [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, seriously. [SPEAKER_02]: It's seriously, I fucking panicked. [SPEAKER_02]: I ran away. [SPEAKER_02]: I like close the door. [SPEAKER_02]: This is a door to me, but like, I was like, I'm out here. [SPEAKER_04]: I feel like that sounds crazy to some degree, but it's the safest thing.

3:02 [SPEAKER_04]: It's just get us far away as possible before they have an opportunity to escalate and do anything stupid. [SPEAKER_01]: We've done the case on this, though, unfortunately, that is reasonable suspicion. [SPEAKER_01]: And after that, he can tail you and arrest you. [SPEAKER_04]: It is, but he's got to catch you.

3:16 [SPEAKER_02]: Oh, disaster. [SPEAKER_02]: That's funny. [SPEAKER_02]: Anyway, yeah, I got sick. [SPEAKER_04]: If was a man that he would have let her in the car. [SPEAKER_04]: Come on in, sweetie. [SPEAKER_01]: That's the lesson. [SPEAKER_01]: Always let the girl open the Uber door first. [SPEAKER_01]: You're in front of me a gentleman.

3:30 [SPEAKER_04]: Right. [SPEAKER_04]: Anyway, that's what you got for hanging out in Charleston. [SPEAKER_04]: I've ever been in many ways. [SPEAKER_04]: It's very nice. [SPEAKER_04]: But there. [SPEAKER_04]: There is a deep dark energy. [SPEAKER_04]: I think I told you guys this that way. [SPEAKER_04]: We went for like a little honeymoon trip and we get to the hotel, which is like an old mansion and the lady at the front desk.

3:47 [SPEAKER_04]: She's like, Oh, it's this is for your honeymoon. [SPEAKER_04]: She turns to my wife and is like, [SPEAKER_04]: I can be the first person to book you under your new name. [SPEAKER_04]: And she's like, no, I'm not changing my name. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: The end of the chain of proof like the lady and like the bell hot boy who like gives you a tour of the mansion.

4:10 [SPEAKER_04]: They're like, oh, these fucking big city Vibro. [SPEAKER_02]: Right. [SPEAKER_02]: The easiest pigs. [SPEAKER_04]: Give them the gay room then. [SPEAKER_04]: That was a microcosm of my experience in Charleston which like it was a very nice hotel was a lovely in many ways But there's just a dark under current in that city started this of a war a little bit.

4:30 [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, a little bit. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I started this of a war started slavery started the fight with Michael in the car Many of America's Great battle great conflicts [SPEAKER_04]: some good museums, but Michael, I feel like you didn't get to those based on what I'm hearing. [SPEAKER_02]: That is correct.

4:52 [SPEAKER_02]: That was with that kind of trip. [SPEAKER_02]: No, no museum stuff. [SPEAKER_01]: Different kind of trip. [SPEAKER_01]: More of a due mushrooms was strange ladies kind of trip. [SPEAKER_04]: Alright, today's case national park service versus national trust for historic preservation in the United States.

5:09 [SPEAKER_04]: It's the ballroom case folks talking ballroom here. [SPEAKER_04]: Last fall, Donald Trump, on nothing but a whim. [SPEAKER_04]: The mileage that east wing of the White House, he planned to replace it with a ballroom. [SPEAKER_04]: a space for boys to dance, instruction began, but some folks at the national trust for historic preservation, which is a nonprofit, suit to stop the construction.

5:35 [SPEAKER_04]: They said this is illegal. [SPEAKER_04]: Donald Trump does not have the power to do any of this. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: with the Supreme Court in a five to four decision so that those folks cannot sue. [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, this is one of the more ridiculous sort of absurdist Trumpian stories that has dominated the headline.

5:52 [SPEAKER_01]: So people will remember Trump demolished the East Wing, the historic East Wing of the White House last fall. [SPEAKER_01]: And this has been on his mind for years. [SPEAKER_01]: Apparently in 2010, he called [SPEAKER_02]: a modular ballroom. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, yeah, he said, like, he said, like, he said, like, he said, like, he could have hired us.

6:15 [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_02]: And so, of course, now he's like, I need to build it for real. [SPEAKER_02]: I need to build a permanent one. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, let's start demoing. [SPEAKER_04]: Unequivocal funny is thing he's done. [SPEAKER_04]: Unequivocal funny is thing he's done is just knocked down a new chunk of the White House without notice.

6:30 [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, just sorry to the folks at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, but we different this. [SPEAKER_01]: I got a chuckle out of it. [SPEAKER_01]: Sorry you were offended. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_01]: And why was he doing that? [SPEAKER_01]: Well, he announced that his administration was going to be building a big ballroom.

6:47 [SPEAKER_01]: Let's talk a little bit about the plans for the ballroom, which actually we're not released at this point when they were demolishing the East Wing of the White House or even right after the demolition had happened. [SPEAKER_01]: But in the subsequent months, the plans for this ballroom have come out.

7:02 [SPEAKER_01]: It is a proposed [SPEAKER_01]: 90,000 square foot structure now estimated at least Trump is admitting to cost 400 million dollars. [SPEAKER_01]: Meanwhile, the post is reporting that it's more like 600 million. [SPEAKER_01]: There's a New York magazine article that estimates this at 800 million dollars for cost.

7:26 [SPEAKER_01]: The ballroom is supposed to seat. [SPEAKER_01]: A thousand people have 40 foot ceilings. [SPEAKER_01]: There will be a commercial kitchen built. [SPEAKER_01]: There will be a movie theater built. [SPEAKER_01]: And we'll get into how even these plans have expanded, let's say, since the initial announcement.

7:40 [SPEAKER_01]: Now, $400 million, where the heck does that come from? [SPEAKER_01]: Well, Trump is saying that it's coming from him. [SPEAKER_01]: I was a private donor, not in his capacity as president, I guess, but him as a private donor and, quote, other patriot donors. [SPEAKER_01]: I gave what I could, you know.

7:57 [SPEAKER_01]: I'm sure you did Peter. [SPEAKER_01]: And so about a month after this was announced, meaning the ballroom, but also, like, the demolition happened. [SPEAKER_01]: Trump's pick for head of the National Capital Planning Commission, this is the federal agency that's tasked with approving construction work and renovations on government buildings in DC, the head of that federal agency will sharp, of course, hand picked by Trump.

8:23 [SPEAKER_01]: said the demolition of the East Wing doesn't require this agency's approval. [SPEAKER_01]: He said, we only have to approve vertical builds. [SPEAKER_01]: You get rid of something, you demolishing something, you planning a construction site. [SPEAKER_01]: I don't have anything to do with that.

8:37 [SPEAKER_01]: He said, right. [SPEAKER_01]: October of last year, Trump hosted a dinner at the White House for donors who had agreed to contribute to the ballroom. [SPEAKER_01]: Guests there include executives from Amazon, Apple, Coinbase, Comcast, Google, Lockheed, Martin, and Meta. [SPEAKER_01]: Just so you know.

8:54 [SPEAKER_01]: And the White House also, in the same month, like around the time of this dinner, they shared a list of 37 ballroom donors. [SPEAKER_01]: Of course, they included those big tech companies, et cetera, but also some individuals of note, oil, tycoon, herald ham, the winkle voss twins, around this.

9:11 [SPEAKER_01]: Let us know. [SPEAKER_01]: A private donor is in Blackstone, CEO, Steven Schwarzman, Blackstone, not to be confused with Black Rock, et cetera, but they're all evil. [SPEAKER_01]: You know, I don't need to go into the details. [SPEAKER_01]: Blackstone's worse. [SPEAKER_01]: We could argue about it, I guess.

9:23 [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, it's a real race to the fucking bottom, isn't it? [SPEAKER_04]: In the private equity, always worse than head funds in my mind. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_01]: Okay. [SPEAKER_04]: Personal feeling, I have. [SPEAKER_01]: All right. [SPEAKER_01]: All right. [SPEAKER_01]: You got to bring politics into it.

9:33 [SPEAKER_01]: Jecksept. [SPEAKER_01]: So last December, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, this non-profit organization, sued the Trump administration to halt construction of the new ballroom. [SPEAKER_01]: Their argument being, whoa, you guys have skipped. [SPEAKER_01]: All of the necessary steps, the National Capital Planning Commission that federal agency never got plans filed even for the construction for the new build.

9:56 [SPEAKER_01]: Forget the demolition. [SPEAKER_01]: No environmental impact statement was prepared. [SPEAKER_01]: No congressional approval was given for this construction. [SPEAKER_01]: And there was no public comment period. [SPEAKER_01]: All of these things are required necessary for construction of this size that the federal government is overseeing much less the fucking White House.

10:16 [SPEAKER_01]: It's after this lawsuit is filed, and after, importantly, the district court in D.C. ordered that construction had to stop until the project like got congressional approval. [SPEAKER_01]: It's after that that Trump announced that a massive military complex was also being built underground.

10:35 [SPEAKER_01]: It was a new, quote, presidential emergency operations center. [SPEAKER_01]: He said to reporters aboard Air Force One back in March, we have bomb shelters that we're building. [SPEAKER_01]: We have a hospital and very major medical facilities that we're building. [SPEAKER_01]: We have all of these things.

10:52 [SPEAKER_01]: So that's called, I'm allowed to continue building. [SPEAKER_01]: Meaning, now he's brought, of course, that age-old argument, national security is into this, to justify the continued construction. [SPEAKER_04]: You might have thought this is just a ballroom. [SPEAKER_04]: Now, it's like a fucking transformer situation.

11:09 [SPEAKER_04]: There's a military base under here. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_01]: So then, again, his handpicked head of the National Capital Planning Commission goes ahead and approves the ballroom design [SPEAKER_01]: timing of this though, when did that approval come through? [SPEAKER_01]: That was during the public comment period that they did later open up and just a broad look at that comment period and the messages that came in, the New York Times found that 98% of the more than 32,000 messages received in the public comment period were negative.

11:42 [SPEAKER_01]: Meanwhile, while all of this is going on, that case that the National Trust for Historic Preservation had filed is making its way through the courts, with injunctions being issued, injunctions on the construction, then a temporary stay on the injunctions, [SPEAKER_01]: to say no construction can continue while the appellate court reviews the case decides the case then an injunction being reissued and when it comes to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court also issued a temporary stay allowing construction to continue while the case was pending at the court.

12:14 [SPEAKER_01]: That's how we get to this percureum opinion where the Supreme Court says you're good to go. [SPEAKER_04]: Keep on building. [SPEAKER_04]: So let's talk about the law here, as the court repeatedly reminds us in this case, this is not about whether the ball room is legal or illegal. [SPEAKER_04]: This is about whether the national trust for historic preservation has the ability to sue over it, whether they have standing.

12:38 [SPEAKER_04]: This is a percureyem opinion, like we mentioned, [SPEAKER_04]: That means no single justice is listed as the author. [SPEAKER_04]: We've talked about this, but historically this has been used to signal unity in the court, often in like uncontroversial situations, but now you see this almost inverted where they use it almost cynically, like in controversial cases, as if to pretend that the court's unified when it's not, it's also possible that they're using it because like no single justice wrote the opinion that they like shared writing duties.

13:10 [SPEAKER_04]: My crazy hero is those reads out loud. [SPEAKER_02]: I get that, although there weren't any rhetorical questions, so. [SPEAKER_01]: There is one paragraph that's like, and consider this, period. [SPEAKER_01]: Like that's, that starts with that very gorsage. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, it's like three words and yeah.

13:25 [SPEAKER_02]: Okay, I'm salt, I'm salt. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, that is gorsage, right? [SPEAKER_04]: There's no, at least that section has got to be gorsage. [SPEAKER_04]: So there's a very interesting framing throughout this opinion. [SPEAKER_04]: in October 2025. [SPEAKER_04]: The federal government started a project to replace the East Wing of the White House.

13:46 [SPEAKER_04]: The federal government. [SPEAKER_04]: I noticed this. [SPEAKER_04]: When Trump started tearing down the East Wing, he did that without any authorization from Congress, right? [SPEAKER_04]: He did it without authorization from the National Capital Planning Commission. [SPEAKER_04]: The agency that provides guidance and oversight over [SPEAKER_04]: And of course there's no judicial approval of any type.

14:05 [SPEAKER_04]: Trump took the position that he didn't need any authorization that all of that was perfluous. [SPEAKER_04]: It's his prerogative as president to do this. [SPEAKER_04]: Even if you think that's correct, pretty dishonest to say that the federal government started this project. [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

14:19 [SPEAKER_02]: Right. [SPEAKER_04]: It's not like an aesthetic complaint, right? [SPEAKER_04]: This is the whole substantive underlying case here, right? [SPEAKER_04]: That there's been no authorization that the federal government has not properly authorized. [SPEAKER_02]: Right. [SPEAKER_04]: The demolition and construction.

14:32 [SPEAKER_04]: So like Trump is functionally abrogating congressional power to himself. [SPEAKER_04]: Like, that's the whole question here and to start off the opinion. [SPEAKER_01]: like this pretty wild stuff right yeah for five justices of the Supreme Court to sign on to say well President Trump is the federal government.

14:49 [SPEAKER_02]: Yes, yes, yes, yes Yes, I'm going to say if you don't believe in unitary executive theory It's not even right to say the executive branch started this project is clearly just Trump Yeah, but even if you do buy that that anything Trump does is the will of the executive That's not fucking Congress.

15:07 [SPEAKER_02]: That's not the federal government [SPEAKER_02]: It's so weird. [SPEAKER_02]: It's so weird. [SPEAKER_02]: It's creepy and bizarre. [SPEAKER_04]: The gist of the narrow legal question here is whether the national trust folks have the standing to suit. [SPEAKER_04]: In order to have standing, you have to be able to show that you are injured in some specific way.

15:28 [SPEAKER_04]: These folks are saying, well, look, we have an interest in historical preservation. [SPEAKER_04]: That's our jobs. [SPEAKER_04]: That's our personal interest. [SPEAKER_04]: This affects that. [SPEAKER_04]: And the court is basically saying, that's a little bit too tenuous. [SPEAKER_04]: Now on its own, I don't think that's super indefensible from the court.

15:45 [SPEAKER_04]: This is definitely like a thin claim to standing relatively, right? [SPEAKER_04]: Like a strong claim to standing would be like, you hit me with your car and my leg is broken and now I'm doing you, right? [SPEAKER_04]: Specific injury. [SPEAKER_04]: this is pretty clearly a gray area. [SPEAKER_04]: However, there is some solid precedent that supports the trust argument.

16:04 [SPEAKER_04]: This is pointed out by the dissent. [SPEAKER_04]: The court has said that environmental organizations can sue over regulations because those regulations might limit their ability to say observe an animal that they want to observe, which seems pretty similar to what the trust is arguing here, right?

16:20 [SPEAKER_04]: This is some shit we love to look at. [SPEAKER_04]: This is our vibe dude. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_01]: This is our bag. [SPEAKER_01]: This is what we do. [SPEAKER_04]: Right. [SPEAKER_04]: And there's also another thing here, which is often ignored by conservatives in standing cases.

16:33 [SPEAKER_04]: But the question should in my mind be too full that one is like, that's it makes sense for these people to be able to sue. [SPEAKER_04]: To is if they can't sue, who can sue? [SPEAKER_04]: Because it's not actually clear here who could. [SPEAKER_04]: Presumably, Congress could, if you could imagine a situation where Congress was unified enough to like challenge Trump on this, which is sort of ridiculous, but it's not 100% clear who actually could stop this, which in my mind would mean that you have to give these folks a little bit of a shot, right?

17:13 [SPEAKER_02]: one branch of government has to sue the other branch of government in order for laws to be enforced. [SPEAKER_01]: I kind of think your definition of standing is too narrow. [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, but you've got to be somebody else. [SPEAKER_02]: Right? [SPEAKER_02]: Other than Congress. [SPEAKER_02]: You can sue to enforce the laws.

17:31 [SPEAKER_02]: There's got to be. [SPEAKER_04]: What about me is just like a guy who wanted to use the ballroom, right? [SPEAKER_04]: Like a guy who loves dance. [SPEAKER_01]: I love to dance and I love to dance around gold tassels. [SPEAKER_02]: Peter Peter intervening as an interested party on the side of the wall.

17:51 [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, so I'll foot now that's like we're also dismissing the case. [SPEAKER_04]: Peter Shamsheri who loves to dance. [SPEAKER_04]: So that's like part one, which is like are these people directly harmed and it's sort of the gray area. [SPEAKER_04]: But then there's another part of the analysis, which is about irreparable harm.

18:08 [SPEAKER_04]: The trust is seeking an injunction, a court order to halt construction of the ballroom, in order to make the case that you need an injunction, you have to argue that you will be a reparably harmed if the construction continues. [SPEAKER_04]: The idea being like, once it's built, the damage has been done.

18:23 [SPEAKER_04]: To the extent that they did not want it built, once it's built, fuck, right? [SPEAKER_04]: What do you do? [SPEAKER_04]: If the court allows construction to continue, then it will be finished at some point in the near future, and then it's unclear what could actually be done about it. [SPEAKER_04]: So that's to me what doesn't make sense about the courts opinion.

18:40 [SPEAKER_04]: Throughout the opinion, they're like, look, this isn't about whether this is legal. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: This is just a procedural issue. [SPEAKER_04]: This is about standing. [SPEAKER_04]: But by the time they rule on legality, [SPEAKER_04]: The ballroom could be finished.

18:54 [SPEAKER_04]: If they decide that it's illegal, are they gonna order the demolition of the ballroom? [SPEAKER_04]: No, no, are they gonna order it to be rebuilt? [SPEAKER_04]: Like it used to be? [SPEAKER_04]: No, of course not, no court as the balls do that. [SPEAKER_04]: Usually when people ask me about injunctions.

19:10 [SPEAKER_04]: I use construction and demolition as the archetypal example of irreparable harm, right? [SPEAKER_04]: Someone will be like, there's a dispute where one party wants to demolish a building and one party doesn't. [SPEAKER_04]: Courts will very frequently, and that exact circumstance intervene and be like, no, no, no, no demolition, don't build anything.

19:32 [SPEAKER_04]: that will create a reprobable harm. [SPEAKER_04]: This is literally like the archetypal example of a reprobable harm and the court is like, no, yeah, no, the court basically ignores this and they spend almost all their time talking about the harm to the Trump administration. [SPEAKER_01]: Yes, how that's a reprobable if they can't build this.

19:52 [SPEAKER_04]: The administration has various like senior security leaders submit affidavits saying that this is a security issue. [SPEAKER_04]: It's sort of absurd because it's not clear what type of security concerns would arise from just waiting a few months. [SPEAKER_04]: Like they instead they're like no, like every day that this is not built.

20:08 [SPEAKER_04]: That's a big security threat. [SPEAKER_04]: But like they don't actually specify, like what do you mean? [SPEAKER_04]: What are you talking about, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: It's also notable that whatever security concerns they have, those concerns are the result of the fact that they demolish the East Wing without notice or warning.

20:23 [SPEAKER_02]: Right. [SPEAKER_04]: So they demolish the East Wing and then they're like, oh my god, you can't prevent us from building this ballroom because that would be a security problem. [SPEAKER_04]: It's like, well, you created that security problem, right? [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: And by the way, we were sort of dancing around this a little bit, but there's two projects here.

20:38 [SPEAKER_04]: One is the ballroom, but one is the military base below. [SPEAKER_04]: So they keep, they're like, we need the ballroom to be built to protect the military base below. [SPEAKER_04]: And it's like the book you're talking about, dude, what the, none of this used to be there. [SPEAKER_01]: We need a gilded palace to protect us.

20:55 [SPEAKER_04]: It's very stupid. [SPEAKER_04]: It's a continuation of this trend with this court where Trump not getting to do what he wants is a reputable harm. [SPEAKER_04]: But anyone else being like, hey, I think this harms me, they're like, what are you kidding? [SPEAKER_04]: You're just a nerd who loves looking at old shit.

21:11 [SPEAKER_04]: This doesn't mean no. [SPEAKER_03]: Donald Trump is in danger. [SPEAKER_04]: And we're just like dancing around the dancing, pun intended, all right? [SPEAKER_04]: We're dancing around the fact that this is about Donald Trump wanting a place to dance. [SPEAKER_03]: He wants a ballroom because he thinks ballrooms are nice and classy and cool.

21:26 [SPEAKER_04]: When the generals tell him, like, sir, the Iranians have closed the straight again. [SPEAKER_04]: He wants to go do the foot loose scene in the ballroom, right? [SPEAKER_04]: He wants to, like, just alone in the ballroom dancing it out. [SPEAKER_04]: That's what Trump wants. [SPEAKER_04]: That's his actual interest here.

21:42 [SPEAKER_01]: He wants a place where his beautiful boys, he's always pointing out. [SPEAKER_01]: The beautiful men in his life can get touched up, dolled up, and show up to do choreograph dancing together. [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_02]: He does love his beautiful boys, but he also loves construction.

22:01 [SPEAKER_02]: There is this great article published in New York Magazine about the ballroom and [SPEAKER_02]: The details about Trump just being like a construction boy are so good about him. [SPEAKER_01]: So you know, for the love of the game. [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, he's like, he's like, other presidents, you know, people like other presidents relaxed by doing exercise, but Trump, he says, most of my time is doing other things like the markets, Iran, Venezuela, the military.

22:24 [SPEAKER_02]: A lot of people who don't do construction, it drives them crazy for me. [SPEAKER_02]: It's actually relaxing because I'm really good at it. [SPEAKER_02]: Of course. [SPEAKER_02]: Of course. [SPEAKER_01]: Which everybody should really check out. [SPEAKER_01]: It is hilarious. [SPEAKER_01]: It is talkful of amazing quotes It starts with him talking about the columns the columns.

22:41 [SPEAKER_01]: Yes, I'm gonna be on the ballroom Yes, he says these are Corinthian columns and then he criticizes sort of like maybe a previous version or that like he intervened and made them Corinthian columns He says those columns Corinthian columns are your highest level there are levels of columns Corinthian Doric and to be honest with you the White House [SPEAKER_01]: should have used Corinthian.

23:01 [SPEAKER_01]: It's a luxury house, a house of luxury, and they use dork, which is not as nice. [SPEAKER_01]: Maybe I'll fix that too. [SPEAKER_02]: Then the article points out that they're not dork, they're what Ionic, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, they're not Corinthian on the ballroom. [SPEAKER_01]: They're actually Ionic.

23:14 [SPEAKER_01]: You're reading it. [SPEAKER_04]: You're getting the vibe of someone who's bullshitting about columns. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, you're like, you know what I mean? [SPEAKER_01]: Right, right. [SPEAKER_01]: It's the materials. [SPEAKER_01]: He's like going into like, this is nuclear grade concrete.

23:24 [SPEAKER_01]: And what the fuck does that mean? [SPEAKER_01]: He also says that [SPEAKER_04]: Incredible. [SPEAKER_02]: Incredible. [SPEAKER_04]: My favorite anecdote from the whole thing is that they pull a quote from John Osaf, who's like, you know, likely presidential, contender in 2028. [SPEAKER_04]: And Osaf says, like, you know, he's just doing this because he wants to spend his time building monuments to himself and no one's gonna bother doing it after he's gone.

23:54 [SPEAKER_04]: And then the reporter asked Trump about that quote and he's like, yeah, that's true. [SPEAKER_04]: No one will do it when some gone. [SPEAKER_04]: That's right. [SPEAKER_02]: I've got to do it. [SPEAKER_02]: You've got to do it. [SPEAKER_04]: You've got to do it. [SPEAKER_04]: You're sort of like, this is a great Trump thing where you will confront him with the psychoanalysis and he's like, that's correct.

24:12 [SPEAKER_04]: That's it. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: Are you just doing this because you feel weak and this reminds you of your own competence of an area where you feel competent? [SPEAKER_04]: He's like absolutely. [SPEAKER_03]: That is. [SPEAKER_04]: Things aren't going well in other parts of my presidency.

24:26 [SPEAKER_02]: But I do feel strong. [SPEAKER_04]: but now I feel I feel good. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I feel pretty and who else is going to build like a gilded monument to my own ego, but me. [SPEAKER_01]: So I'm actually perfect for this. [SPEAKER_02]: That also reminds me of the last thing I want to mention, which is this magazine has an anecdote that day after Charlie Kirk was assassinated.

24:45 [SPEAKER_02]: Yes. [SPEAKER_02]: Trump was asked how he was coping and he said, I think very good. [SPEAKER_02]: And by the way, right there, you see all the trucks, they've just started construction on the ballroom. [SPEAKER_04]: Oh my god, even if you hadn't mentioned the trucks, there's something so Trumpian about answering, like, how are you holding up?

25:07 [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, real good. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I'm crushing it. [SPEAKER_04]: We're making the fucking ballroom. [SPEAKER_04]: It's great. [SPEAKER_04]: Even if you're doing fine when someone asks you that question, you have to be like, it's been tough. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: that you care about stuff even if it's like some random person and you're not not particularly concerned, but Trump like the the idea that he's not doing something well it can't it doesn't sit with us right including coping [SPEAKER_04]: So it's so we asked to be like, yeah, now I'm doing great.

25:37 [SPEAKER_04]: I'm doing great. [SPEAKER_02]: We're crushing the ballroom. [SPEAKER_01]: Come on, right along for now. [SPEAKER_01]: Lost, what loss? [SPEAKER_01]: This has a nation. [SPEAKER_01]: What has a nation? [SPEAKER_01]: We're doing great. [SPEAKER_01]: I'm in my bag. [SPEAKER_01]: I'm building gold, tassel, fringes, Corinthian columns.

25:49 [SPEAKER_02]: Charlie Kirk, he's dead. [SPEAKER_02]: One step backward. [SPEAKER_02]: Ballroom continues to step forward. [SPEAKER_02]: That's how you got to look at life. [SPEAKER_04]: All right. [SPEAKER_04]: So if we can sort of step back into our lawyer brains, to just think about how fucking absurd this all is, the White House is not the personal property of the president.

26:10 [SPEAKER_04]: No one in their right mind actually thinks it is. [SPEAKER_04]: The idea that like any president could just level the White House and like rebuild whatever they want, right? [SPEAKER_04]: Replace it with whatever they want. [SPEAKER_04]: No one actually believes it that's the case. [SPEAKER_04]: But you see like two things happening here at once.

26:28 [SPEAKER_04]: You have the Conservatives, Sans Roberts, which we'll talk about in a second, all pretending that maybe there's some merit here. [SPEAKER_04]: It's like national security concerns, and let's just sort of analyze this, as if this isn't ridiculous. [SPEAKER_04]: As if it isn't ridiculous, it's like one day we all just like woke up and they're like, by the way, they demolish the...

26:45 [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, they didn't ask anybody and now they're doing a privately donor funded massive construction project. [SPEAKER_04]: They destroyed the White House and then Facebook is like sponsoring its relationship. [SPEAKER_04]: What are you talking about? [SPEAKER_04]: And then the second thing is like you can see how the law launders these ridiculous things.

27:07 [SPEAKER_04]: Right. [SPEAKER_04]: This thing that is transparently ridiculous, transparently illegal, gets reduced to a discussion about the standing of some non-profit you've never heard of before, which allows the justices to sort of like hem and ha, and ignore the central issue. [SPEAKER_04]: which is that Donald Trump definitely doesn't have the power to do this, right?

27:27 [SPEAKER_04]: There's no actual constitutional power to do this. [SPEAKER_01]: Exactly. [SPEAKER_04]: And they could just jump in and say that, right? [SPEAKER_04]: They could jump in and be like, look, almost certainly does not have the power here. [SPEAKER_04]: So let's just halt this, right? [SPEAKER_04]: That's the safest thing to do.

27:40 [SPEAKER_04]: That's the most reasonable thing to do. [SPEAKER_04]: They could absolutely do that. [SPEAKER_04]: That's why other courts did do that. [SPEAKER_04]: Exactly. [SPEAKER_04]: But no, no, instead we get this prolonged jerk off where we have to pretend that this is normal, [SPEAKER_04]: in the business of laundering this shit for Donald Trump.

27:57 [SPEAKER_01]: Exactly. [SPEAKER_02]: So Roberts has a dissent, it's okay. [SPEAKER_02]: He really leans into the fact that this is obviously illegal. [SPEAKER_02]: He leads with, not only is there no congressional authorization or agency action or anything like that, they're actually statutes for bidding this.

28:27 [SPEAKER_02]: Like this is expressly forbidden by statute to just raise public buildings and start building on public grounds without congressional authorization. [SPEAKER_04]: Which I was actually surprised to hear about because like this is the kind of thing where when it happened you wouldn't be surprised if there was no law against it because like who could have thought of this like the last person to try was the Canadians in the war between 12 like did we really need a law?

28:53 [SPEAKER_04]: But apparently there are laws, yeah. [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, there are laws for just about everything. [SPEAKER_02]: You know, Roberts dissent, I think he's right to lean into, you know, what Peter mentioned, that sort of environmental group, association of standing line of cases, where it's like, hey, if an environmental org has even one member who enjoys fishing on a river, or looking at a crocodile or whatever, that is a cognizable interest in a concrete, particularized harm, [SPEAKER_02]: That is good enough for standing for the individual and therefore for the association that they're a member of.

29:26 [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_02]: One thing that I will say, he's a little lazy with, which is, the majority says, Hey, even if we grant that like gazing upon the historic visage of the East Wing is a cognizable interest, which is part of the sanding requirement. [SPEAKER_02]: They say it's not concrete or particularized, [SPEAKER_02]: And I don't think that's right.

29:51 [SPEAKER_02]: I'll just say my understanding of this. [SPEAKER_02]: It's always been sort of like, if you live in Montana and have never seen a crocodile and have no plans to go to Florida to see a crocodile or anything like that and are like just sort of the abstract, like one day I would like to see a crocodile.

30:05 [SPEAKER_02]: That might be a cognizable interest, but it's not a concrete in particularized one. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_02]: Well, the other hand, when you live in DC and walk by the White House every month to look at it, that is concrete in particularized, right? [SPEAKER_02]: It's not just that you're like looking at it.

30:21 [SPEAKER_02]: You do it. [SPEAKER_02]: You go when you do it all the time. [SPEAKER_01]: And you're part of an association that prioritizes these things, works on these things, things about these things. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_02]: I thought that was worth saying. [SPEAKER_02]: Like, he let this point go unanswered.

30:35 [SPEAKER_02]: I think from the percureum and it should have been answered that, you know, he just sort of conflates cognizable interest in particularized harm and it's like, [SPEAKER_02]: Look, if you can look at a crocodile and that's cognizable and concrete in particularized, then looking at the White House is, too.

30:51 [SPEAKER_02]: And it's like, yeah, I agree, but you could be a little more precise about this. [SPEAKER_01]: There's even more you can say. [SPEAKER_01]: There's even more that's wrong with the opinion. [SPEAKER_02]: But ultimately, he hits the appropriate point, which is like, now we live in a world where I want to look at a crocodile.

31:06 [SPEAKER_02]: is good enough for standing, but I want to look at the White House is not, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense, which I do think pretty squarely puts this in the Trump is a special boy, um, category of cases. [SPEAKER_02]: And so, despite my nitpicking, I think Roberts does that pretty well.

31:25 [SPEAKER_02]: Highlights that this is Trump is a special boy jurisprudence going on here. [SPEAKER_04]: By the way, we're pretty deep into this episode, and no one here has used the term The People's House. [SPEAKER_04]: I want to pat us on the back for that. [SPEAKER_01]: Do they say it in the opinion?

31:39 [SPEAKER_01]: They don't in the Perkuryan. [SPEAKER_04]: No, no. [SPEAKER_04]: It's in the discourse. [SPEAKER_04]: The People's House is like a nickname for the White House. [SPEAKER_04]: I can't remember exactly where it traces to, but sometimes in the relatively early republic they were sort of debating the relationship of the White House and the President and the people.

31:53 [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: And is it a King's Palace or it became like colloquially referred to as the People's House, right? [SPEAKER_04]: And so you're seeing a lot of people being like, Trump can't do that. [SPEAKER_04]: That's the People's House. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_01]: It doesn't own it.

32:06 [SPEAKER_02]: And did you guys see in this New York Mag article the Democrats all like offering their different takes on what should happen to the ballroom and just each one in their own little particularized loser way? [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, the Kawaii do they have to be so goofy? [SPEAKER_01]: Gofias Rokana says the ballroom should be turned into an economic war room to lead the renewal into industrialization of our nation, a room to support the working class blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

32:33 [SPEAKER_04]: What are you talking [SPEAKER_04]: It's just a room where economics are discussed. [SPEAKER_02]: I can't even hear that without doing a jerk off motion. [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, you know. [SPEAKER_04]: First of all, it's like, it's like it's $1,000 square foot. [SPEAKER_04]: It's just like a conference table in the middle of it, where they're talking about economics.

32:50 [SPEAKER_02]: Every economist in the country in that ballroom. [SPEAKER_04]: And then AOC's said it should be a soup cage. [SPEAKER_02]: I love AOC, but come on. [SPEAKER_02]: Come the fuck out. [SPEAKER_04]: That's the most pandering AOC like, yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: This is how you know she's running, right?

33:06 [SPEAKER_04]: Like, what are many things that she starts saying, shit, like that? [SPEAKER_04]: This is turn into a soup cage. [SPEAKER_04]: And what if they turned it into a place where homeless kids can dance? [SPEAKER_04]: I mean, [SPEAKER_02]: What have they turned it into a place where we could all reach for the stars?

33:22 [SPEAKER_01]: No, but the funniest one, of course, that I'm really glad this quote was included. [SPEAKER_01]: Jamal Buwi, friend of the pod, said it should be taken out by drones. [SPEAKER_01]: Oh, yes. [SPEAKER_01]: Hell yes. [SPEAKER_04]: They could outweigh the drones, right? [SPEAKER_04]: You got your grads to Jamal for getting that in New York, man.

33:35 [SPEAKER_04]: The only pundit who was, like, sort of intellectually came of age in the podcast era. [SPEAKER_04]: Right. [SPEAKER_04]: Everyone's like, what's the coolest, most interesting idea for it? [SPEAKER_04]: And he's like, blow it up with drones too. [SPEAKER_02]: And he's absolutely correct, absolutely correct.

33:50 [SPEAKER_04]: I mean, it's the funniest thing to do. [SPEAKER_01]: Is there something to be made of Roberts and Decent here? [SPEAKER_01]: Doesn't strike me as like all that surprising necessarily, but I also don't think this is some big like stake in the ground that Roberts is doing. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, it's hard to know why Roberts sort of bounces back and forth.

34:07 [SPEAKER_03]: Other than, yeah, he's just sort of like ideologically in the middle, right? [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: In the literal sense that he is between the three libs and the furthest right, justices. [SPEAKER_04]: But I don't know that I have a coherent theory of like why descent here, but not an immunity.

34:26 [SPEAKER_04]: One thing I've never been able to pin down with John Roberts is like coherent jurisprudence, right? [SPEAKER_04]: Oh, exactly. [SPEAKER_04]: You can see independent trends. [SPEAKER_04]: You can be like not a fan of voting, right? [SPEAKER_04]: It doesn't give a fuck about voting, right?

34:37 [SPEAKER_04]: But like I don't think he has a theory of executive power, right? [SPEAKER_04]: Or something like that. [SPEAKER_04]: I don't think any of that applies to John Roberts. [SPEAKER_02]: I do wonder if he's just sort of, I mean, offended, like his sensibilities are offended by the ballroom.

34:49 [SPEAKER_04]: Right. [SPEAKER_02]: In a way that does not move the other conservative justices. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: You know, when we started this podcast, we were like, we're talking about how the Supreme Courts jurisprudence affects actual people. [SPEAKER_04]: Like, how has it come into contact with real human people?

35:02 [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: And that's not novel, but it is not the way that most lawyers approach the law. [SPEAKER_04]: It's not how they think about the law. [SPEAKER_04]: However, they are a little bit more concerned about how the law impacts buildings. [SPEAKER_04]: That is something that historically lawyers have been slightly more concerned about.

35:19 [SPEAKER_01]: And you see this in Chief Justice John Robert at the end of the day he cares a lot about buildings. [SPEAKER_01]: I actually thought you were going to see something different Whatever smart thing you thought I was going to say I was going to say that as well Not that that's stupid as thing you just [SPEAKER_02]: I was like, where is he, what is he doing?

35:38 [SPEAKER_04]: Where is he? [SPEAKER_04]: No, this is correct. [SPEAKER_04]: Lawyers care about building my people is correct. [SPEAKER_04]: Sorry that you guys aren't there yet, but in a couple of years, you'll be there with him. [SPEAKER_02]: I'm not saying you's offended because it's a building. [SPEAKER_02]: I'm saying you're offended because it's a fucking historical monument, dude.

35:53 [SPEAKER_04]: No, but I'm taking it to a more interesting place. [SPEAKER_01]: What I thought you were going to say is that our podcast is different now because we're in a Trumpian era. [SPEAKER_01]: Like the Supreme Court cases are different now. [SPEAKER_01]: You know, and obviously we were covering, you know at the beginning of the podcast much more.

36:15 [SPEAKER_01]: historic cases and today you know there's something sort of interesting about headline cases that are like ongoing controversies with the Trump administration but we talk a little bit less about like the little guy that's affected because the Supreme Court is handling cases now that are actually [SPEAKER_01]: Trump certainly, but also the ultra wealthy, the elite, like this kind of corporate stuff.

36:44 [SPEAKER_01]: And it is, it is fuck everybody else. [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, obviously we're like in this age of like, you know, authoritarian immigration enforcement, all of this stuff. [SPEAKER_01]: And we cover that too. [SPEAKER_01]: But it is interesting, I think, that like a subset, [SPEAKER_01]: because of Trump, because of what Trump represents, in terms of like his approach to being the president, his approach to like the Trump administration has an executive theory of executive power, right?

37:09 [SPEAKER_01]: And, and because of that, there's like a subject now of Supreme Court cases that are just about this. [SPEAKER_04]: I think another way to look at this is like a lot of how lefty legal analysts used to think about the law. [SPEAKER_04]: is that like normal people, indigent folks, people of color, gets squeeze between the margins in the interpretation of law.

37:31 [SPEAKER_04]: But that's almost not how I would look at the quarterstress prudence today because it's built around expressly oppressing those people. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, it's no longer that, you know, the average person is sort of injured in the normal course of the Supreme Court's work. [SPEAKER_04]: It's that the Supreme Court is part of a political project designed expressly to injure them.

37:56 [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, exactly. [SPEAKER_01]: And injure them as classes. [SPEAKER_01]: And injure them as groups of people, right? [SPEAKER_01]: This is systemic oppression, actually. [SPEAKER_01]: And so it's actually about, you know, class systems group, group dynamics and power rather than an individual was harmed in this way that the law can or cannot see as arbitrary on the basis of something that we are asserting legally is unfair, like race.

38:23 [SPEAKER_02]: You know, the course and active participant in the oppression of these groups. [SPEAKER_04]: Yes, 30 years ago, you might have seen cases about immigration procedure, where the court [SPEAKER_04]: was talking about due process and what due process is owed to immigrants and come to a conclusion that was harmful to the due process rights of immigrants.

38:44 [SPEAKER_04]: Now they're like, you can discriminate based on race by the way. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, yeah, exactly. [SPEAKER_02]: I think this is also like a good example, also of how Trump has operated and how this entire era has operated in a lot of ways. [SPEAKER_02]: and is like, who's going to stop me?

39:01 [SPEAKER_02]: And then everyone's left scrambling sort of in the wreckage to figure out what to do. [SPEAKER_02]: He gets away with a lot just by being like, well, fuck you, good luck. [SPEAKER_02]: getting to claw this back. [SPEAKER_02]: Now that I've already done it, he's the classic ask for forgiveness, not permission, but he doesn't even ask for forgiveness.

39:23 [SPEAKER_02]: He's just like, I'm just going to do it. [SPEAKER_02]: And then I'm going to say, I had every right to do it, and who's going to fucking stop me. [SPEAKER_02]: I'm going to tariff the shit out of whoever. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: He knows that he will be granted forgiveness by his followers.

39:34 [SPEAKER_04]: Trump is both Christ and the follower. [SPEAKER_04]: He is the God-like figure. [SPEAKER_04]: He will also always receive forgiveness for his sins, right? [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: Two years ago, if you had pulled Republicans on demolishing the East Wing of the White House, I guarantee you it wasn't polling well.

39:52 [SPEAKER_01]: It wasn't popular. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: And then Trump is like, I want to do it. [SPEAKER_01]: Paulim now and they're like yeah yeah that's I've always wanted that yeah absolutely that's a good idea and absolutely the president can do what he wishes on this. [SPEAKER_04]: There's a little minor piece of this case that I want to talk about a bit which is that in the course of this opinion the percureum [SPEAKER_04]: that have been filed by members of the executive agency, senior members being like, we must do this for national security purposes.

40:23 [SPEAKER_04]: We have to dance. [SPEAKER_04]: And it's kind of bizarre because on one hand, this is like a very normal proper way to do law. [SPEAKER_04]: you're looking at the affidavits, people are like, hey, here is what I think about this. [SPEAKER_04]: And I'm an expert and I'm in a position to weigh in on this and I'm weighing it.

40:43 [SPEAKER_04]: And the court's like, okay, yes, that is a very normal way to do law. [SPEAKER_04]: I'm not sure that I have a good alternative. [SPEAKER_04]: But when you look at like the political landscape now, [SPEAKER_04]: What is the value of that evidence in an era of like profound bad faith? [SPEAKER_04]: Like what does it matter to me that like the secretary of the army is like every day that passes is a new security threat.

41:06 [SPEAKER_04]: When I know that he's lying because Trump asked him to say that right. [SPEAKER_03]: What's the value of that? [SPEAKER_03]: And what is the court's role in being like, well, this is fucking bullshit. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: I don't even know, right? [SPEAKER_04]: The bad faith permeates the entire system so thoroughly that the whole thing's poison.

41:22 [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, yeah, no, we should go through like just so listeners can hear some of the quotes from these affidavits that the percureum opinion like Elizon in sort of ruling that this is so so important as a national security issue in the opinion, be cabinet, these experts. [SPEAKER_01]: have asserted that every day during which construction is delayed, impairs the secret services protective operations.

41:49 [SPEAKER_01]: In the past, they say, presidents and their visitors had to meet in soft tents, or off-site when gathering in large numbers. [SPEAKER_01]: in the government's application for this stay, asking this Supreme Court to take this case. [SPEAKER_01]: This is sour, general sour, the guy with the voice, you know, writes about how President Trump has been the target of a growing number of recent assassination attempts growing?

42:13 [SPEAKER_01]: Why do you know, why do you know if it's growing or not? [SPEAKER_01]: That seems a projection into the future. [SPEAKER_04]: Why are you asserting that this is on a growth? [SPEAKER_04]: I mean, that increasing over time. [SPEAKER_04]: You have to admit, I guess. [SPEAKER_01]: So he names the instances obviously of this assassination.

42:30 [SPEAKER_01]: It's on Trump that we know about, but he also says some that are made up for sure. [SPEAKER_01]: He says there was a conspiracy to deploy drones armed with explosives at the UFC Freedom 250 event. [SPEAKER_01]: I don't know, believe that or not, but I'm going to go ahead and say that that's fake.

42:47 [SPEAKER_01]: And also, he says that the threat... Was he going to flee to the ballroom? [SPEAKER_01]: I don't know. [SPEAKER_01]: I don't know exactly. [SPEAKER_01]: And then the threat of a missile... To the ballroom immediately, to the gold tassels, high-buhing the gold tassels. [SPEAKER_04]: And then the giant gilded horse.

43:05 [SPEAKER_01]: And then he also talks about the threat of a missile attack against Air Force One on July 8th. [SPEAKER_01]: The one that their photos of Trump, you know, escaping in the bar card or whatever. [SPEAKER_01]: But, you know, there's been lots of reporting that that was not real fake. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah.

43:23 [SPEAKER_04]: And also, I guess, if you're just like, here are these assassination attempts, right? [SPEAKER_04]: And you're going through some real ones, some fake ones, some in between. [SPEAKER_04]: Right. [SPEAKER_01]: Right. [SPEAKER_01]: Right. [SPEAKER_01]: How is the ball room helping Trump on Air Force 1 in Turkey?

43:39 [SPEAKER_04]: Right. [SPEAKER_04]: Right. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: This is it's just so stupid and fake even at face value. [SPEAKER_04]: It's a problem of their own creation. [SPEAKER_03]: How do you deal with this world? [SPEAKER_04]: How do you deal with this like everyone is bullshitting everyone in this conservative political ecosystem is a complete lackey?

43:59 [SPEAKER_04]: How do you even analyze information in this environment? [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_02]: Right. [SPEAKER_02]: And to that point, I also, you know, I feel like I've made a similar point in a few episodes recently, but now that we live in the era of the unitary executive, I'm going to keep sort of hammering how stupid it is.

44:16 [SPEAKER_02]: I don't see the value of members of the executive branch filing multiple affidavits explaining things when according to the conservatives on the court, like literally all you would need is an affidavit from Donald Trump being like there are national security reasons to build the ballroom.

44:34 [SPEAKER_04]: Okay, so the secretary of the army says he's the Commander in Chief, right? [SPEAKER_04]: He's in charge, right? [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, he's got, and if he says that, then the secretary of the army has to operationalize that. [SPEAKER_02]: According to, you know, Terry executive theory, the CAA has to operationalize that.

44:50 [SPEAKER_02]: He's in charge, and he tells them what to do, and his will is the will of the executive, and everybody in the executive branch executes his will. [SPEAKER_02]: It's all just the same thing. [SPEAKER_02]: It's just [SPEAKER_02]: Right? [SPEAKER_02]: Like it's like eight different puppets that are all President Trump's words in essence.

45:07 [SPEAKER_02]: According to the unitary executive theory, there's no value in hearing from underlings because the only thing they do is give meaning to the executive as well. [SPEAKER_02]: So gives a shit. [SPEAKER_02]: It makes no sense once you turn them into hacks of the president to then rely on their expertise.

45:28 [SPEAKER_01]: Exactly. [SPEAKER_02]: As if it's something independent of the will of the president. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, no, totally. [SPEAKER_01]: It's a completely hypocritical weaponization of this. [SPEAKER_01]: Like, here for this case, these are sort of like independent experts. [SPEAKER_01]: And we can value their assertions in these affidavits as sort of independent and also supplemental supportive of Trump's claim.

45:46 [SPEAKER_01]: But, you know, when these cabinet members' agency heads are getting fired, well, [SPEAKER_01]: That's Trump's painting as the unitary executive. [SPEAKER_01]: Right. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, they're sort of like a limb of Trump's power that Trump can do whatever he wants. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, and maybe the last thing we say about this is like the symbolism is almost too on the nose that like the gilded tackiness of this is so reminiscent of like the most [SPEAKER_01]: Especially like a construction project of this magnitude, you know, and you see the pictures and the plans and the gold tinge everything and I mean, like look at Mara logo this wing of the White House is being created in that image and it's just so reminiscent of

46:40 [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, like this dictator in whatever the 70s or something built this huge as palace in whatever country it was like a massive drain on the country's wealth like all of this you know totally out of arrogance and image and because I can't I will and like decades later you look back at them as [SPEAKER_01]: absurdities, reminders of abuse of power, the garrisonous, the tackiness, the absurdity of authoritarianism.

47:13 [SPEAKER_01]: The performativeness is so obvious. [SPEAKER_04]: I mean, it's obvious right now, but it's even more obvious as time passes. [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: Like Oscar bots in Turkmenistan, like these capital cities that are just like, [SPEAKER_04]: gilded monstrosities, the soulless nothings, all the Emirates states.

47:29 [SPEAKER_04]: This is such a type of guy, and I feel like if you're someone who's ever read a book in your life, you see stuff like that. [SPEAKER_04]: And you're like, yeah, those guys are just like performing wealth and power, because they're insecure about their wealth and power, and they don't actually know how to run a country, right?

47:46 [SPEAKER_04]: That's just like the second level of analysis. [SPEAKER_03]: But the first level is like, oh, sick. [SPEAKER_04]: I like all that white and gold, that's where Trump is. [SPEAKER_04]: Trump can get to like the basic level to, of just like, and obviously it's performative for. [SPEAKER_01]: So producer Ali has teed up a clip for us to listen to of Trump talking about this damn White House project.

48:10 [SPEAKER_01]: So Ali, let it rip, let it roll. [SPEAKER_00]: There will never be another building like this built that I can tell. [SPEAKER_00]: I built a lot of great things. [SPEAKER_00]: There will never be anything like this built. [SPEAKER_00]: I think you can see the complexity. [SPEAKER_00]: All of these columns go directly up to the roof.

48:26 [SPEAKER_00]: And the roof is a barrier. [SPEAKER_00]: It's a shield because it's made out of the sidewalks or steel, impenetrable steel, and also impenetrable glass. [SPEAKER_00]: The glass is approximately four inches thick and yet it's amazing. [SPEAKER_00]: You can see through it as though it didn't exist.

48:45 [SPEAKER_00]: It's amazing. [SPEAKER_00]: And it can stop just about anything. [SPEAKER_00]: Just about anything. [SPEAKER_00]: So all of this was paid for by myself and because I keep hearing like, I'm not, we are making a gift of this one. [SPEAKER_00]: This is a gift. [SPEAKER_00]: This is not going to be paid for by the taxpayer.

49:02 [SPEAKER_02]: There's a lot there. [SPEAKER_02]: I want to start with the columns go all the way up to the ceiling. [SPEAKER_04]: They come all the way up to the roof. [SPEAKER_02]: All the way up to those columns. [SPEAKER_02]: They're not they're not half-ass in it. [SPEAKER_02]: They don't stop at eye level.

49:15 [SPEAKER_02]: They don't stop there. [SPEAKER_02]: They go. [SPEAKER_02]: They go. [SPEAKER_04]: They're supporting the strike. [SPEAKER_04]: This is, I, here's the thing, not to do too much psychoanalysis here, but I think that Trump is so used to non-structural fake columns. [SPEAKER_04]: If the idea that they would go up to the ceiling, that they're like doing some work.

49:35 [SPEAKER_01]: He's like, yeah. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, you see. [SPEAKER_01]: I'll show you that. [SPEAKER_01]: I'll show you that. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_01]: Are you seeing this? [SPEAKER_04]: If you've ever had any proximity to the real estate industry, [SPEAKER_04]: this is such a fucking type of guy like the finance here who is looking for investors usually and he's giving the tour and he's he's so fucking happy like because you get to sell the bullshit vision right yeah in reality every construction project is a nightmare everything it's it's full of problems and an unforeseen cause and shit like that but [SPEAKER_04]: There's one glorious moment where you're giving the tour to investors and you could talk about the columns and the goal.

50:16 [SPEAKER_01]: You get to say impenetrable steel impenetrable. [SPEAKER_04]: And also impenetrable glass. [SPEAKER_04]: You don't even need both both. [SPEAKER_04]: We have it anyway. [SPEAKER_01]: And also it's such amazing glass. [SPEAKER_02]: You can still see through it. [SPEAKER_04]: You can see through it.

50:29 [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_04]: This is also such perfect Trump in that he pitches corruption. [SPEAKER_04]: as like the obvious and like of course like the taxpayers don't even have to pay for this because we've got private investment dude like can you believe that some people don't think that this is good yeah that we are reaching our grubby little hands out for private investment from major corporations to build part of the White House like some some people think taxpayers should have the pay for this.

50:59 [SPEAKER_01]: I should, I'm saving you money. [SPEAKER_01]: Yes, you should be thanking me, it's a gift. [SPEAKER_04]: It's so good. [SPEAKER_04]: He's like, this is efficiency. [SPEAKER_04]: Corruption is efficiency, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Exactly. [SPEAKER_01]: Exactly. [SPEAKER_03]: This is something that conservatives believe.

51:14 [SPEAKER_04]: We've talked about this in like, good, in cases, but like, that is very conservative. [SPEAKER_04]: Like, you can see that there is like a real appeal to that line of thinking where people are like, yeah, the taxpayer is saving money [SPEAKER_02]: I do like the idea of white house tours now being like, and now welcome to the East Wing sponsored by meta, you know, yeah, totally do put on your meta glasses and it's start to time to begin your tour.

51:42 [SPEAKER_04]: That's exactly mark you listening. [SPEAKER_04]: I know you are. [SPEAKER_04]: Mark has an AI agent listening to every podcast on her and and trolling for ideas. [SPEAKER_04]: And there you go. [SPEAKER_04]: There you go, Zach. [SPEAKER_04]: Welcome. [SPEAKER_04]: No fee needed. [SPEAKER_04]: We do it for you.

52:00 [SPEAKER_04]: Oh God, dude, the ballroom. [SPEAKER_04]: Fuck the fucking ballroom. [SPEAKER_04]: Alright folks, next week, talking to friend of the pod, Josie Duffy raise a better new podcast at the Backfire Effect. [SPEAKER_04]: Follow us on social media at 545 subscribe to our patreon patreon.com slash 545 all spelled out for access to premium and to add free episodes, special events are slack, all sorts of shit.

52:27 [SPEAKER_04]: We'll see you next week. [SPEAKER_02]: Bye, everybody. [SPEAKER_02]: 5 to 4 is presented by Prologt Foggers. [SPEAKER_02]: This episode was produced by Allison Rogers. [SPEAKER_02]: The onafoc provides editorial support. [SPEAKER_02]: Our website was designed by Peter Murphy. [SPEAKER_02]: Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips 10Y and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.