Is there anything more symbolic of political pettiness than demanding the demolition of a ballroom just because it’s tied to a rival’s name? Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., has ignited a firestorm by insisting that future Democratic presidential hopefuls commit to tearing down a new White House ballroom spearheaded by President Donald Trump, as Fox News reports. It’s a bold stance, but one that’s drawing both laughter and scorn from across the political spectrum.
At the heart of this controversy is Trump’s recently announced $250 million ballroom project, a privately funded initiative that’s already under construction at the White House, paired with Swalwell’s unrelenting criticism and the sharp pushback from conservatives.
Last week, Trump revealed that work had begun on the lavish ballroom, a project he’s been championing for months as a modernization of the historic estate.
Unlike many government endeavors, this one comes at no cost to taxpayers, with the administration emphasizing that private funds cover the hefty price tag.
Yet, despite the lack of public expense, Democrats and progressive commentators have pounced, decrying the project as an unnecessary extravagance or a personal monument to Trump.
Enter Swalwell, who didn’t just criticize the ballroom—he called for its outright destruction, demanding that any future Democratic candidate for president pledge to raze it on their first day in office.
“Don’t even think of seeking the Democratic nomination for president unless you pledge to take a wrecking ball to the Trump Ballroom on DAY ONE,” Swalwell declared, as reported by various outlets. Talk about setting a constructive tone for political discourse—why build bridges when you can swing wrecking balls?
As an alternative, Swalwell floated a suggestion from Ruben Gallego to rename it after former President Barack Obama, framing the current name as a “monument to corruption” that cannot stand.
Conservatives, unsurprisingly, aren’t buying Swalwell’s dramatic ultimatum, with lawmakers like Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, firing back at the California representative.
“These people are deranged,” Cruz remarked, capturing the exasperation many on the right feel about what they see as overblown outrage. It’s hard not to wonder if the left’s energy might be better spent on policy debates rather than architectural vendettas.
Sen. Mike Lee added a jab of his own, pointing out the apparent hypocrisy: “I thought you guys were against demolishing anything at the White House.” Touché—consistency seems to be in short supply here.
Interestingly, not all criticism of Swalwell comes from the right; even some traditionally liberal voices are stepping back from his position.
The Washington Post editorial board, in a surprising defense published on Sunday, argued that the White House must evolve with the times and praised Trump’s initiative as a rejection of stagnation. Perhaps there’s hope yet for a bipartisan appreciation of a good dance floor.
While Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren have joined the chorus of criticism, focusing on the symbolism of bulldozers over pressing economic issues, the broader debate reveals a deeper divide—should a building project really become a political lightning rod? On one hand, it’s just a room; on the other, it’s a battleground for ideological grudges. For conservatives, this is yet another example of the left’s obsession with erasing anything tied to Trump, even when it costs taxpayers nothing.
