Jeffries Warns That Donors Behind Trump White House Ballroom Will be Investigated
“And all of this is going to have to be investigated. It will. All of this will have to be uncovered. It will.”
In case you haven’t noticed, Democrats are in full-on meltdown mode over Trump’s addition of a ballroom to the White House. Tweets on X accompanied by pictures of the construction decry the project as an assault on the White House and America itself. As usual, it’s completely over the top.
The rhetoric from Democratic leaders is just as deranged. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries went on MSNBC this week and vowed to investigate the donors who are funding this project.
Democrats constantly claim that Trump is targeting his enemies, then, in the same breath, vow to do the same.
From Townhall:
Jeffries said, without evidence, that the donors were probably using the donations to curry favor with the Trump administration.
“More likely, this is part of what Donald Trump has been doing since day one of his presidency: running the largest pay-to-play scheme in the history of the country. And probably soliciting donations from people who’ve got business before the United States government,” Jeffries said.
“And all of this is going to have to be investigated. It will. All of this will have to be uncovered. It will. And these people are going to be held accountable, no matter how long it takes,” Jeffries continued. “And that’s a warning to all of these people participating in this scheming to manipulate taxpayer dollars and, of course, to destroy the people’s house. The White House belongs to the American people. It doesn’t belong to Donald Trump.”
Right. And 75 million Americans voted for Donald Trump to be president. It’s their house, too. Hakeem Jeffries went on MSNBC and threatened people who are making lawful donations to improve the White House.
Watch the clip below:
Hakeem Jeffries issues a “warning” to funders of the White House ballroom:
“These people are going to be held accountable, no matter how long it takes."
They continue to threaten revenge on one hand, while hyperventilating about Trump’s “revenge tour” on the other. pic.twitter.com/lt0iGOBL7s
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) October 23, 2025
Some people have been surprised by the level of hysteria from the left over the ballroom. See this tweet from Mark Halperin:
This is one of the most bewildering moments in the decade-long reaction of the Resistance. They seem to look at the construction photos as if they show the wreckage of Trump purposefully bombing an orphanage. https://t.co/GmW5FOXKLM
— Mark Halperin (@MarkHalperin) October 22, 2025
I think the simple explanation for the freak out is that Democrats know that this will be a permanent reminder of Trump. It will be a visible part of his legacy from which they will never be able to escape.
For fun, I’ll leave you with this clip of CNN covering changes to White House under Obama. See if you can spot the difference in tone.
A CNN report from 2010:
$376 million White House renovation during the Obama Administration.
Where was the Democrat outrage then? pic.twitter.com/MvLVDFcTru
— Christian Collins (@CollinsforTX) October 22, 2025
Featured image via Twitter/X video.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
You mean exactly what they’ve done for the past 4 years? That didn’t work out the way they thought it would.
Hakeem Jeffries shows many traits similar to others who suffer from TDS, it is only a matter of time before he is prosecuted for something, and then loses everything.
It’s the mark of insanity (aka demoncrats) do the same thing, expecting different results.
Perilously close to bills of attainder
please remind me: “bills of attainder” and how it applies here?
Bills of attainder are laws that target individuals by name or by being so limited as to clearly target individuals. They’re unconstitutional, barred because of acts of Parliament during the English Civil War that stripped named people of their rights snd property.
Planned Parenthood is arguing “bill of attainder” against a provision of the BBB because it cut Medicaid funding to any nonprofit abortion provider who received over $800,000 in Medicaid expenditures in FY 2023… and they are the only organization to whom all those qualifications apply.
If they really are the only ones that qualify, and that was the legislature’s intention, then they are correct that it is a bill of attainder.
The real reason it’s not is that the bill isn’t aimed at them personally, it’s aimed at baby-killers. If they stopped killing babies they wouldn’t be affected.
No, it’s not bills of attainder, it’s just more of the weaponized DOJ that we’ve seen. They weaponized it, they used it tentatively under 0bama and then ruthlessly under Biden, and now they’re threatening to do it again if they ever get the White House back, but somehow Trump shouldn’t use it.
They’re not threatening to make laws targeting these people, but to investigate them, see if they can find anything to charge them with, and if they find anything then they’ll throw the book at them. Exactly the way they did to Trump, and Trump has done to James, Comey, etc.
And what Trump falsely promised he would do to Mrs Clinton, but never had any intention of doing: investigate her until the evidence of her many misdoings was uncovered, and then use it.
This is constitutional, but it stinks. Investigations should be predicated on reasonable suspicion, not on what the subject has been doing politically. But there’s nothing in the constitution that says so.
It’s just plain old Beria-ism like they have been doing since 2016.
Show me the Trump and I will show you the crime.
One unmentioned reason Jefferies might be making this threat is to scare away donors. That means President Trump may have to contribute more, and potentially much more than he intended to. Of course, what President Trump can do is to take a page of Brandon’s playbook, and that is to give all the donors preemptive pardons.
So what would dollar store obama do if 50 million Trump voters decided to contribute $5 each to the project? Investigate every one of them? Highly unlikely.
I seem to recall that Congressional investigations, to be lawful, need to have some valid legislative purpose. What would that “legislative purpose” be in this case? Is smearing donors and exposing them to hostility and retribution a valid legislative purpose?
Outhouse doesn’t worry about such trivial things when he simps for the left.
Go to Hell. Now. By the shortest available route.
The legislative purpose is pretty obvious. To see whether there was corruption going on. What they were getting in return for their money, what was promised to them, what business they had that required government approval, etc.
Use RICO to permanently abolish the Democrat crime cabal.
At that point the abhorrent threats of criminal weaponization of the DOJ becomes moot
This asshole really needs to be pied. I prefer someone knock a couple of teeth out but I’ll settle for a nice white shaving cream pie right in the kisser. It would be such a deserved humiliation.
Tells you all you need to know about the democrats that they elected this loser their leader.
What he needs is a paint locker conversation.
Blanket party comes to mind
Dim witted dime store Obama. Sad.
Checks notes; for donating money so taxpayers don’t have to cover the bill?
“And all of this is going to have to be investigated. It will. All of this will have to be uncovered. It will.’
Your terms are acceptable.
Tell us, Hakeem — how are you enjoying the view from your third “primary residence?”
The allegation is that they’re not giving the money out of the goodness of their hearts, but as bribes to Trump for unspecified favors. The grounds for this allegation is exactly zero. Just pure speculation.
Which makes it no different from the allegation in Trump’s first term that foreign governments were deliberately overpaying for stays at his hotel, as a way of bribing him for unspecified favors, again with no grounds at all, just pure speculation,
You rightly point out that there are no grounds for this. My addition is that this is Democrat Psychological Projection. If this was a Democrat President doing this he would be demanding money for the project from people that wanted him(or her) to grant them favors.
How are donations toward building a public building bribes to Trump?
It makes no sense to me. Trump is the least bribable President we have had since Kennedy on the basis of the wealth they had before they became president.
Of the Presidents who never had a private sector job or inherited wealth, and have become wealthy after leaving the Presidency all of them are Democrats. I didn’t spend a lot of time researching that so I could be wrong.
I wouldn’t be throwing bribery stones in the Democrats glass house if I were Jefferies.
The ballroom is Trump’s vanity project, his legacy, so giving to it is a way of currying favor with him.
It’s not as if this doesn’t make sense, but there’s just no evidence of a quid pro quo.
Think of the left’s yammering about all the gifts Clarence Thomas has received from his rich friend, whatever his name is. “Bribes! Corruption!” Now it’s perfectly true that these gifts could have been bribes, had this friend had any business before the court. And if he ever does have such business there’s no question that Thomas will have to recuse himself. Neither of them have any objection to that. But the fact is that there’s nothing Thomas can do for him, and that’s why it isn’t a bribe. He’s never had a case before SCOTUS, and if he ever does Thomas will recuse, so he’ll be a vote short.
A smear is an allegation? So a smear can create the probable cause necessary to begin an investigation? Because DSO pulled this out of his ass. The claim could be leveled at any politician who takes money from anyone for anything, no matter how legal the donation might be. Probable cause to investigate (literally) all politicians?
You don’t need probable cause to begin an investigation.
Yes, you do. Congress, for example, can look into who donated and how much they donated, because there’s a nexus between the donors and the government (the building of the ballroom at the White House). But you can’t, say, examine the books of the people who made the donations to see if there was any impropriety. Without probable cause, that would be a fishing expedition. Congress is limited as to what it can look into and what it can’t look into. It can look entirely into the workings of the federal government and its officials and agents (people like Wray, Comey, Clapper, Schiff, etc.) because it has lawful oversight over everything related to the federal government. But it can’t do the same to private parties merely because they donated money to a government building project. There must be cause to suspect wrongdoing. SCOTUS says that legal acts can’t, by themselves, constitute probable cause merely because illegal acts might possibly be associated with those legal acts. If this weren’t so, what legal acts wouldn’t, by themselves, constitute probable cause for the instigation of an investigation? (E.g., a cop can’t stop a car for merely driving past because its driver may be operating the vehicle without a license. The cop needs cause to believe a crime is being committed before he stops the vehicle, and doing something that may be done legally – driving – doesn’t, and can’t, provide that cause.) Probable cause comes from credible accusations of criminal acts (the observation of an offense by the officer who wants to stop a vehicle) or by evidence (lawfully acquired). An unsupported allegation (aka a smear) is neither of those things. A crime must be identified first. Jeffries has identified the potential suspects without yet having identified the specific criminal acts – he will find those later. How very Soviet of him. But this is not how our system works. Evidence of the crime comes first. Identifying the criminals comes after, not before.
Isn’t the intent of the 4th Amendment to prohibit fishing expeditions?
No, Dave, you do NOT need probable cause to begin an investigation. You don’t even need a reasonable suspicion. There is literally NO limit whatsoever on what may be investigated.
You do need probable cause to get a search warrant.
You don’t need probable cause for a subpoena, but you do need to be able to show how you’re legally entitled to the material sought. You can’t just force someone to give you stuff because you want it.
But just to investigate the donors? He doesn’t need any cause whatsoever. If he’s the speaker, he can do it just because he feels like it.
Captee, the fourth amendment covers search and arrest warrants. It doesn’t limit what Congress can investigate.
Any time someone alleges something, it’s an allegation. That’s what the word means.
There are credible allegations and there are allegations that are merely smears. What makes Jeffries’ allegation not merely a smear and do investigations start based on smears or credible allegations?
Dave, I didn’t say it was a credible allegation. It is an allegation and nothing more.
And you don’t need probable cause to investigate something. You don’t need any cause at all.
“The grounds for this allegation is exactly zero. Just pure speculation.”
“Well, it’s what WE would do!”
Usually you investigate donors when they benefit the recipient. The new ballroom is for the American people! How about looking into how fatboy Pritzker “Won” $1,500,000 playing blackjack in Vegas and then opened gambling all over IL!
Id rather see those donating to the Clinton global initiatives under investigation.
Yup. With equal lack of grounds, but hey, they make the rules, we only follow them.
More grounds. The Clintons have become rich by moving through the Presidency and other offices.
There is no actual evidence that donations to their foundation have been bribes to gain corrupt favors from them. It stands to reason that this might be the case, and I completely approve of investigating to find out whether it is the case, but that investigation might not find anything. And the only reason I approve of looking is because that’s the rule they made; let them choke on it.
The Clintons, like Trump, are special (well, not so special) cases. Because they occupied government offices, everything they did with respect to those offices is subject to scrutiny, even without cause. Trump, in the instant situation, may be investigated to see if he did political favors (and not just any “favors”) for those donating to the White House project. However, the people who are making the donations aren’t subject to similar rules, because they’re not (I’m presuming) office holders. If Trump is found to have done political favors for any of them, then there’d be cause to investigate those particular donors who received the favors (but no others). But donating funds to a government project is lawful/legal. A lawful/legal act can’t be the basis for an investigation of someone in the private sector. If it could be, then anything could become the basis for an investigation, and that’s not how our system works. Or at least, that’s not how it’s supposed to work.
Jeffries is threatening the donors. He understands that the mere threat of being tied up in legal proceedings, even if innocent of wrongdoing, can strip Trump of support (not just in the White House project).
I think the donors should sue Jeffries, just to see how fast he retreats into “immunity” rather than putting his own money on the line. That’s not something Spartacus would do, but Jeffries is no Spartacus and it would be glorious to expose him as the fraud he is.
First of all, that IS how it works. Congress can investigate pretty much anything it likes. It only has to have some relation to possible legislation, or to oversight of the government. The nexus here is obvious, so if Jeffries is speaker he can investigate.
Second, there is no special exception for office holders. These donors are fair game for investigation every bit as much as Trump or the Clintons.
Third, they can’t sue him. If they try they risk getting sanctioned for frivolous lawsuits. And of course he would immediately invoke his immunity. Why wouldn’t he? Any congressman would, and would be an idiot not to.
So, let’s follow their rule of having the IRS audit political opponents….
They deny ever having done so, even though we know they’re lying. But if Trump tried it the IRS would refuse the order, just as they did Nixon’s order to do the same.
No, it’s just TDS and it absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. It’s just more temper tantrums from a bunch of freaking losers because they didn’t get what they wanted. And screw them
Dime store Obummer sad that know nothing Joe couldn’t impact the WH for forever.
He really thinks he’s a tough guy
He’s not
Dollar Store Obama says what? Oh by the way, your Sombrero is missing, jackass
Obama is polish without substance.
That will stick with him forever
The ballroom should include a mosaic of Washington choosing the site of the city and Trump giving it a ballroom.
Model it after the one in the Hagia Sophia of Constantine giving Christ the city and Justinian giving Him the Hagia Sophia.
The restrooms should be labeled with a graphic of an autopen writing “Men” or “Women.”
Obama is highly upset. He says that the ballroom is replacing his tent. He maintains that his legacy is being destroyed and demands that the tent he used for a ballroom be preserved.
Convert to matching outfits for Pritzker and Abrams. Problem solved.
If tents are good enough for Muslims, they should be good enough for enough for every one. [end sarcasm]
Tough talk, Temu Obama. You coming around with your baseball bat to crack some donor skulls, tough guy?
“Temu Obama”
I likes dat!
The Cultural Marxists will want to come after everyone on the Trump wagon if they ever get back in power.
Wouldn’t put them past bulldozer everything on the new beautiful Ball Room the day they can.
It’s what Keystone Borderwall Joe would do.
If it had been up to them, the White House would have burned to the ground in 2020, the Summer of Love, every last Democrat was on board.
A question that now needs asking is whether Jeffries and other crazed Democrats will accept the results of the next election, and especially the one after that. Does not sound like it.
Awww, geez. Is it time for that again, already?! This is exhausting.
I’ll make a $100.00AUD (Australian) donation; just to get on the list!
As usual, Jeffries and the other members of ‘The Resistance’ do nothing, other than oppose anything coming from Trump. They don’t care where the millions are coming from that fund left wing riots, looting and anarchy, but they are dead set on finding out who is funding Trump’s addition to the WH, so that taxpayers do not have to foot the bill.
The White House was desecrated in 1833 by the installation of indoor plumbing. And the president at that time was a democrat.
The White House originally had an outhouse behind the mansion near the South Lawn. This was the main facility for presidents, staff, and guests when Thomas Jefferson moved in in 1801.
Whoever tore down the white house outhouse destroyed a significant historical structure.
Strictly speaking, I’m sure that’s true. The original outhouse would certainly be considered an historically significant structure if it still existed today.
Makes me think of Native American rock art and petroglyphs. It’s all “historically and culturally significant” (and I agree). But if someone tags a rock with spray paint it’s “vandalism.” Except that if the “vandalism” lasted more than 80 or 100 years, it would then also be considered “historically and culturally significant.” I imagine that hundreds of years ago there may have been Native Americans who looked with disapproval at their fellows who were marking up the local rock walls with their “art.”
It was the Andrew Jackson administration when the s* first moved inside the WH.
Excavations of the White House grounds have uncovered the remnants of the brick-lined privy—this is where the expression “built like a brick shitehouse” comes from.
If the President replaces Bondi with someone not dedicated to helping the Deep State, Hakko will be one of those behind bars for treason.
He has certainly not committed treason. I’m not aware of any other crimes he’s committed, but treason is certainly not among them.
Republicans are making a mistake by misusing “Treason” as the Democrats misused “Racism”!
Jeez, it’s not like Trump is renting out the Lincoln Bedroom to political supporters or something.
Speaking of the weaponized legal system, MSNBC gleefully reported that the investigation into Schiff has fizzled, and the prosecutors have officially told Bondi there’s no case against him. The only problem with this is that MSNBC made it up. Not only didn’t they say that, the meeting at which they were supposed to have said it never happened. It’s a complete fabrication, and the investigation against him is proceeding as usual.
They’re setting up an accusation that Trump took a direct hand in the investigation and charging of Schiff, ordering it to go forward “no matter what.”
It is just more “anonymous sources familiar with the thinking” nonsense which allows them to say anything.
Temu Obama should be more concerned with getting re elected than the peoples ballroom built at no expense to the taxpayer. He is going to get primaried
Ty Mike
I spent some time Wednesday looking for a way to make a small donation. I contacted the White House website but their staff has been furloughed and they couldn’t help. Rich people and corporations aren’t the only ones that would like to be part of this… My idea was to crowd fund a Grand Piano. There I go, wish casting again. Golden Age.. absolutely!!
I would donate to that!
Put me down for a cowbell.
Democrats working diligently to check more boxes on the Nazi To Do lust, all while screeching that their opponents are Nazis.
same way obamer broke down the clintons…gotta love the lefts agenda and how they pursue it
Hope that Jeffries made sure his personal professional finances are all in order before making such allegations. Wouldn’t want it revealed that he was running a “Pay-For-Play” scheme when accepting donations or made some untruthful statements on that bank mortgage loan application. Just sayin’.
Yes, two can play at this game.
Meanwhile, about $100Bn is fleeced from Medicare each year (their own estimates) but not a single investigation on how to change those rules.
Jeffries just wants to punish Trump and his donors some more. Democrats seem to love this theater; losers all.