Hillary Comments On White House Renovations

By
Mark Stevens
-

Democrats may be up in arms over President Donald Trump’s new White House ballroom, but once again, the outrage feels more like a theater production than a legitimate policy dispute. The facts are straightforward: Trump is constructing a permanent, privately funded ballroom to replace the endless use of temporary tents for official events—a move that not only enhances functionality but saves taxpayers money. You’d think such a win-win scenario would be met with at least a grudging nod of approval. Instead, the reaction from the left has been predictably unhinged.

The trigger? Renovations to part of the East Wing. Never mind that the East Wing is hardly sacred architectural ground. It wasn’t even part of the original White House. The structure as it stands today was expanded in 1942 under Franklin D. Roosevelt—not to preserve history, but to disguise the installation of an underground wartime bunker. Since then, it’s been used primarily for administrative offices, including those of the First Lady. In short, the East Wing is functional, not ceremonial. Expanding it to better host events fits squarely within the historical precedent of past presidential updates.


But try telling that to the professional pearl-clutchers in the media and political class. CNN’s Jim Acosta jumped into the fray, reflexively treating the renovation as some kind of democratic doomsday. His grasp of history—at least as it pertains to White House renovations—seems as weak as his objectivity.

Then came Hillary Clinton, who took to X to claim Trump was “destroying” the White House. The irony is rich, to put it mildly. Clinton, who notoriously disables replies on her social media posts to avoid accountability, has a long and colorful history with the White House—and not all of it flattering.


Let’s rewind. When the Clintons departed the White House in 2001, they didn’t exactly leave the place untouched. The GAO later confirmed that their team engaged in intentional vandalism, including removing keyboard keys (yes, the “W” keys, because George W. Bush was incoming), gluing desk drawers shut, and leaving obscene messages on voicemail systems. The GAO stated plainly that “damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur” and that some of it “clearly was intentional.” While no prosecutions followed, the conclusion was clear: the Clintons didn’t just leave—they made a scene on their way out.

Then there’s the furniture scandal. When they left, the Clintons took nearly $190,000 worth of furnishings and gifts with them—many of which were later revealed to have been intended for the White House, not for them personally. Under scrutiny, they returned $28,000 worth of furnishings and paid for others, a quiet admission that they had overstepped.


And let’s not even get into the actual desecration of the White House—the kind involving interns, cigars, and stained dresses. Or the Lincoln Bedroom turning into a sleepover suite for Hollywood donors. If you’re going to talk about the dignity of the White House, that’s where the conversation should start.

The truth is, Hillary Clinton still hasn’t gotten over 2016. Every Trump project—every policy, every statement, every construction plan—is viewed through the lens of her lingering resentment. So when Trump builds a ballroom, it’s not a renovation—it’s a vendetta, in her mind. And when the GOP House Judiciary account fired back at her recent comments, it hit her where it hurts: in the legacy.


The faux outrage over this ballroom is just the latest example of a political class allergic to Trump’s wins, no matter how practical, popular, or privately funded they may be. But Americans see through it. They’d rather have presidents building ballrooms than blowing smoke—and when it comes to White House respect, the Clintons are in no position to lecture anyone.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR