Breaking: Americans Furious as Trump Caught Trying to Spend One Billion Dollars on Ballroom

Summary

The Parnas Perspective — May 5, 2026

Episode: “Breaking: Americans Furious as Trump Caught Trying to Spend One Billion Dollars on Ballroom”

Host: Aaron Parnas
Guest: Nithya Rahman (LA mayoral candidate)

---

Overview

In this episode, Aaron Parnas breaks down a late-breaking story in U.S. politics: a quietly inserted Senate provision that would use $1 billion in taxpayer money to cover the costs of Donald Trump’s controversial new White House ballroom—a project originally promised to be privately funded at a much lower cost. The episode explores transparency issues, political hypocrisy, and public outrage, as well as the “security” justifications for the spending. Parnas also analyses a recent viral moment from Trump involving children in the Oval Office and wraps up with a substantive interview with Nithya Rahman, a leading progressive candidate challenging Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. The conversation touches on homelessness, housing policy, disaster recovery, and the realities of intergovernmental negotiation in the Trump era.

---

Key Segments & Discussion Points

1. Trump’s $1 Billion Ballroom: From Private Promise to Public Expense

[00:26–03:44]

• Parnas reveals that Republicans have “quietly snuck” a $1 billion allocation for Trump’s White House ballroom into a Senate budget measure, despite prior assurances that the project would be donor-funded and capped at $400 million.
• The provision earmarks the money for “security adjustments and upgrades,” purportedly for the East Wing modernization, both above and below ground, including an unspecified “military industrial complex” beneath the ballroom.
• Parnas underscores the lack of transparency if the funding had remained private, noting that at least public funding enables limited congressional oversight of contractors and expenditures.
• Quote:

  “It also goes back on his promise that this ballroom will be funded by private donations. So a lie there.” — Aaron Parnas [02:32]

• Parnas notes that the language in the bill is broad, citing “security purposes” as justification, granting the administration wide leeway to categorize expenditures.

---

2. Trump’s Oval Office Proclamation: Presidential Fitness or ‘Veep’ Episode?

[03:44–05:00]

• Parnas plays audio from Trump’s Oval Office event with children, highlighting a moment where Trump addresses trans athletes and references “Barack Hussein Obama.”
• Notable Moment: Trump tells a boy:

  “And you’ll never compete against women in powerlifting. No, sir... This guy came, he was a failed power lifter, but he went on the other side and he decided that he wanted to go into women’s sports. And he broke the record by 118 pounds. Think that’s fair?” — Donald Trump [03:53]

• Parnas compares the moment to the satirical show ‘Veep’ and underscores the oddity:

  “We’re literally asking kids, have you heard of Barack Hussein Obama. I mean, you can’t really make this stuff up—truly an episode out of Veep.” — Aaron Parnas [05:00]

---

3. Interview: Nithya Rahman on LA’s Future

[05:33–13:01]

Rahman on Her Candidacy & Challenging the Status Quo

[05:33–06:30]

• Rahman, LA City Councilmember, frames her campaign as a response to chronic failures in housing and homelessness, and a plea for new, urgent leadership.

  “There is a profound feeling of disappointment and disconnection with our city government, particularly our mayor’s leadership right now… That same sense of urgency that drove me… is what drove me at this moment to get into this race on the issues that feel the most urgent for LA.” — Nithya Rahman [05:39]

Disillusionment with Mayor Bass

[06:30–08:15]

• Rahman describes initial hope in Mayor Bass, but details a lack of urgency and transparency in tackling the housing and homelessness crisis.

  “I have a deep amount of empathy for, for Spencer Pratt, who lost his home during the fires. And I share the frustration that he and so many residents… feel in the lack of urgency and accountability in the city’s response.” — Nithya Rahman [10:11]

LA’s Unaffordable Housing Crisis: Policy Solutions

[08:15–09:45]

• Rahman links the city’s burdensome housing costs to policy decisions that have limited housing density and resisted state mandates.
• Advocates “gentle density”—duplexes, triplexes—and less red tape, especially near transit and jobs.

  “We can reduce red tape, we can zone for greater density near jobs and near transit. We can add gentle density even in single family home neighborhoods… to generate exactly the kind of family housing… that Los Angeles has needed for a very, very long time.” — Nithya Rahman [09:10]

Fire Recovery: Accountability & Missed Opportunities

[09:45–11:23]

• Rahman critiques city leadership over slow fire recovery efforts (with a nod to nonpartisan opponent Spencer Pratt, a fire victim).

  “Recovery needs one clear point of accountability. After our initial recovery czar was let go, no one was appointed to replace him… Angelenos feel disappointed by the support they’ve been provided by the city and by this mayor’s office.” — Nithya Rahman [10:30]

Navigating the Trump Administration as Mayor

[11:23–13:01]

• Rahman emphasizes the need for proactive federal engagement—especially to shield immigrant Angelenos from potential federal overreach during major events like the Olympics.

  “We have to be working hard to ensure that we’re getting what we need…whether it is assistance for residents of the Palisades or assurance that when the Olympics happens…federal law enforcement will not be deployed against our own residents, so many of whom are immigrants… That is exactly the kind of proactive engagement that I want to provide.” — Nithya Rahman [12:05]

---

Notable Quotes

• Aaron Parnas [02:32]: “It also goes back on his promise that this ballroom will be funded by private donations. So a lie there.”
• Donald Trump [03:53]: “And you’ll never compete against women in powerlifting. No, sir.”
• Aaron Parnas [05:00]: “We’re literally asking kids, have you heard of Barack Hussein Obama. I mean, you can’t really make this stuff up—truly an episode out of Veep.”
• Nithya Rahman [05:39]: “There is a profound feeling of disappointment and disconnection with our city government, particularly our mayor’s leadership right now…”
• Nithya Rahman [09:10]: “We can add gentle density even in single family home neighborhoods near transit, duplexes, triplexes. That can generate exactly the kind of family housing…that Los Angeles has needed for a very, very long time.”
• Nithya Rahman [12:05]: “That is exactly the kind of proactive engagement that I want to provide and I think that this moment calls for…”

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:26] — Breaking news: $1B for Trump’s Ballroom exposed
• [03:44] — Trump’s Powerlifting/Barack Obama moment with kids in the Oval
• [05:33] — Nithya Rahman interview: Why she’s running for mayor
• [08:15] — Housing crisis and affordability in LA
• [09:45] — Fire recovery critique
• [11:23] — Working with the Trump administration as mayor

---

Conclusion

This episode exemplifies The Parnas Perspective’s blend of rapid-fire political analysis and substantive local issue coverage. Parnas brings real clarity and urgency to headline-making misappropriation of public funds, exposes the shifting narratives of political actors, and offers listeners a grounded conversation with a major local leader seeking to challenge LA’s political establishment. The tone is sharply critical, knowledgeable, and informed by legal and policy expertise—making the show a valuable resource for understanding the week’s most significant political stories.

Transcript

[A]

I'm Kiana, and I leveled up my business with Shopify. Once I figured out that Shopify was a thing, I never turned back. I can create a site with my eyes closed. Shopify thinks ahead of us, you know, and it thinks about the customer more than anything. Every day I'm thinking about some other new business, but Shopify is doing it to me because it's so easy to use. It's like I can't stop. I'm addicted.

[B]

Start your free [e-mail] we have some major developments this afternoon. The Republican Party in the United States Senate is quietly sneaking in a provision into another funding bill that would provide a billion dollars of your taxpayer dollars to fund Donald Trump's Ballroom. After telling us for months that the ballroom would be funded by private donors that would cost $400 million, well, now we're in the stage where taxpayers may soon foot the bill not to the tune of $400 million, but to the tune of $1 billion. And it was snuck into a provision and a Senate reconciliation budget bill. A billion out of the $72 billion they want to fund CBP, ICE, immigration enforcement with will go to funding Donald Trump's Ballroom. Is it going to pass? Likely, and we're going to talk about it right now. So that you're aware. Trump, meanwhile, just had an event in the Oval Office that we're going to get to momentarily, and I spoke with LA mayoral candidate Nithya Rahman, who's running for mayor right now, leading in many polls at the end of this interview. So like Comment Share subscribe if you can subscribe to my substack, click the link below to support my work. This is a piece of part of the Senate Reconciliation bill and I want to read it with you. It's titled United States Secret Service Quote Appropriation, in addition to amounts otherwise available there is appropriated to the United States Secret Service for fiscal year 2026 out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated. $1 billion to remain available until September 30, 2029 for the purposes of security adjustments and upgrades, including within the perimeter fence of the White House compound to support enhancements by the United States Secret Service relating to the East Wing modernization project, including above ground and below ground security features. The East Wing modernization project is the ballroom. Above ground features are the ballroom itself. Below ground features are that massive military industrial complex at the President is actively building underneath the ground. We don't really know what the details are. Now, the one small, small, small silver lining here for folks who are upset about the money being spent is that given that this money will be appropriated by Congress, there are some oversight mechanisms that Congress has to actually review. Who is spending the money, what contractors are getting it, et cetera. If it was a completely private ballroom, you wouldn't be able to essentially see which big companies are donating to Trump's ballroom and what they're getting in exchange for it. Here you, at least you'll be able to see. But a billion dollars is a lot more than Trump initially asked for. He asked for $400 million. It also goes back on his promise that this ballroom will be funded by private donations. So a lie there. Now, here's what's interesting, though. This bill specifically says only the money can only go for security purposes. And a lot of conservatives around the White House have pointed that out. Well, anything can be deemed a security purpose by this administration as it relates to the ballroom. They can say that the entire structure, everything inside it, is needed for security, given the recent events at the White House Correspondence center. And that's likely what they'll say. Now, meanwhile, Trump is getting flack today for appearing in the Oval Office for a proclamation signing for the Presidential A Fitness Award test. Take a listen to what he said to the kids.

[C]

Look at this guy. He's a big guy. Me, I'm, I'm doing football right now, and next year I'm going to be trying to do powerlifting. Oh, whoa, whoa. All right, let's go.

[B]

That's awesome.

[C]

And you'll never compete against women in powerlifting. No, sir. Did you see that? They had a man powerlifter, and he decided to go the opposite direction. Took a record, stood for 18 years. He beat it by 119 pounds. Okay. They put a little quarter of an ounce. Quarter of enough. For 18 years it stood. This guy came, he was a failed power lifter, but he went on the other side and he decided that he wanted to go into women's sports. And he broke the record by 118 pounds. Think that's fair? So I don't think we'll have to worry about you. Yes, sir. You're going to do good. Are you a strong person?

[D]

Yes, sir.

[C]

Good. You think you can take me in a fight?

[B]

That's not the only moment during the

[C]

Presidential Fitness Test, but others. And then we had the Obama administration. Wonderful, wonderful person. Barack Hussein Obama. Have you heard of him? We had the Obama administration, which phased out this wonderful tradition of physical fitness. Thank you, Barack, very much. Great job.

[B]

And we're literally asking kids, have you heard of Barack Hussein Obama. I mean, you can't really make this stuff truly an episode out of Veep. I did speak with Nithya Rahman about her running for mayor and how she's going to work with this president, because the LA mayor does have actually have to do that. Let me know what you think. Like Comment Share subscribe to my substack link below to support my work. Here's my interview with Nithya. Super excited today to be joined by Nithya Rahman, who is running for mayor of la. Now I got to jump right in and ask you, why do you want to run for mayor? And why are you challenging Karen Bass, the incumbent?

[D]

You know, I am a progressive. I challenged an incumbent when I first got into local politics because I felt like the Democratic political establishment wasn't doing enough to address some of the biggest issues that Los Angeles was facing. And I feel like right now there is a profound feeling of disappointment and disconnection with our city government, particularly our mayor's leadership right now. That same sense of urgency that drove me to jump into the race against my elected official in my first council race is what drove me at this moment to get into this race on the issues that feel the most urgent for la. Preparing for the Olympics, ensuring that we're addressing the enormous cost of housing, ensuring that we're addressing our homelessness crisis with urgency and with accountability on all of these fronts. I do feel like Angelenos need new leadership, and I want to provide that leadership.

[B]

I want to ask you, because you and Mayor Bass had a close relationship in the past, you've endorsed each other in the past. I guess what changed?

[D]

You know, I have endorsed her and she endorsed me. And I was really hopeful when she came into office that she was confronting our homelessness crisis head on. But I will say that over the last couple of years, in particular, as I have pushed to create a real system in response to our homelessness crisis that can get as many people indoors and off the streets with efficacy and with transparency. I face real resistance from the system as a whole, and specifically from the mayor's office that has the urgency, the authority, to create that system in response on our housing crisis. Something that I think is absolutely essential to the future of Los Angeles. It is essential to our resiliency. The cost of housing is driving so many working families out of this city. We haven't had a deputy mayor of housing for almost two years. We have pushed back against state mandates to create more housing in la instead of telling the state exactly how and where we want to build that housing and really accommodating that housing in our existing city. The cost of housing continues to rise. Angelenos continue to suffer. And our mayor and our city is not taking this with the seriousness that it requires. On, on issues like the Olympics, dealing with Trump, on federal conflict, on immigration, we need a stronger presence, a proactive response that's actively fighting for Los Angeles. And I don't think, you know, see our city's leadership and our mayor as providing that kind of leadership, urgency and fight.

[B]

Right now I want to talk to you a little bit more about housing and housing policy because I think there's this running joke on the Internet where you see you go on Zillow and you go to Los Angeles and you see what you can get for a million dollars and it's a shed on the side of the street. And especially young people right now can't afford to live in Los Angeles. How are you going to bring down housing costs as mayor?

[D]

You know, housing is such a subject to the laws of supply and demand. And in Los Angeles right now we have the lowest number of homes per adult of any city in America and the highest rent burden population of any city in America. I don't think we should be at the top of those two lists. And it is our city policies that have put us at the top of those two lists. Los Angeles has a history of pushing back against efforts to build more housing, actually actively eliminating density in our major neighborhoods, pushing back against building more capacity in la. And when state mandates come in, we fight them instead of actually planning for that density. We can do a lot to change that. We can reduce red tape, we can zone for greater density near jobs and near transit. We can add gentle density even in single family home neighborhoods near transit, duplexes, triplexes. That can generate exactly the kind of family housing, housing that's affordable for working families that Los Angeles has needed for a very, very long time. And my plan to address this does all of that.

[B]

Los Angeles was devastated by fires and the response from the mayor has created some issue among many folks in the city, including your nonpartisan Republican opponent, Spencer Pratt, who's really run on this message that Mayor Bass has failed in response to rebuilding the city after the fires. Do you agree with the general notion that the city has done not enough to rebuild in a short amount of time?

[D]

I share, you know, I have a deep amount of empathy for, for Spencer Pratt, who lost his home during the fires. And I share the frustration that he and so many residents of the Palisades feel in the lack of urgency and accountability in the city's response. Recovery needs one clear point of accountability. After our initial recovery czar was let go, no one was appointed to replace him. And it's been a long time that people are waiting for who is actually responsible for ensuring that all of the different processes that have to take place, coordination within state insurance agency and with insurers, coordination and advocacy with the federal government and with the state government to ensure that recovery and rebuilding can actually happen, ensuring that even our city permitting processes and rebuilding processes are happening in a timely fashion. The mayor's office and the city has the ability to convene all of these jurisdictions and push them in the direction that Angelenos need. And I haven't seen that kind of focused effort in the Palisades. And I think many residents of the Palisades feel disappointed, but by the support that they've been provided by the city and by this mayor's office.

[B]

Now, earlier in the interview, you mentioned working with the federal government, working with the Trump administration. How do you envision that relationship to be if you were mayor? Because obviously, on one hand, you have the kind of tough back and forth that a LA mayor who's a Democrat has with a Republican incumbent. On the other hand, you need the federal government to get a lot of the things you want done, done in the city. So how do you envision working with the president?

[D]

You know, I think that we. We have to be proactive in our engagement with the federal administration. We have to be working hard to ensure that we're getting what we need from them in terms of support and from them in terms of guarantees for our residents safety in all of the efforts that are up ahead, whether it is assistance for residents of the Palisades or whether it's an assurance that when the Olympics happens and when federal law enforcement is here, that. That federal law enforcement will not be deployed against our own residents, so many of whom are immigrants, so many of whom are undocumented, as we've seen when ISIS presence has been on the streets in the past, in just this past year, and it has continued to be a moment of real fear and crisis on our city streets. And we need better advocacy. And we've seen that other cities have had results that have been better for residents when that advocacy has come proactively for, from the city's leadership. We saw that in San Francisco, we saw that in New York City, that engagement with the federal administration, proactive engagement that clarified the needs of their residents, ensured better outcomes for their cities. That is exactly the kind of proactive engagement that I want to provide and I think that this moment calls for Nithya Raman.

[B]

Thank you so much for joining me today. Hey folks, thanks so much for watching. Feel free to add this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or anywhere you watch for the latest breaking news and daily hits throughout the day. Make sure to follow subscribe. See you soon for more.