← We Can Do Hard Things
We Can Do Hard Things
He’s Building a Massive Secret Bunker Beneath the Ballroom!! Amanda w Jon Golinger
01:13:58
Loading summary
Transcript49 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hello, you. Welcome back to We Can Do Hard Things. This is Amanda. I am very happy to be with you today to talk about something deep below the buzz of the news to what I think is a very important and very alarming story. You need to know about much of what we see buzzing in the news. On its surface, it seems like one thing, maybe your garden fair, foolish, nonsen self dealing nonsense, which is aggravating and demoralizing, but to which we have tragically become so accustomed. But when you dig below the buzz of the news and dig down, down, down, you realize there is so very, very much more hiding below the surface. That which we cannot easily see, that which is not being talked about, but which we simply must show in the light of day. That's what we're doing today, literally and figuratively. Today we are digging under Trump's highly controversial $400 million ballroom and digging down, down, down to unearth the massive secret military bunker he is right now, as we speak, building secretly under the White House without congressional oversight or approval. Stay with me as we dig in together. But before we do, I need to acknowledge last week's national tragedy. We have just witnessed six members of the Supreme Court eviscerate the Voting Rights Act, a law ensuring that states follow the constitution, specifically the 15th amendments, guarantee that the right to vote not be denied because of race. This is absolutely devastating and cruel specifically to black and brown Americans, who they themselves or their parents and grandparents endured inhumanity and then gave everything to ensure that America lived up to its own Constitution. And make no mistake, it is also all of our problems. Because when we let the Constitution fall for any of us, it's just a matter of time until it falls for all of us. In future conversations, we'll talk about what this means and our action plan. But for now, please know that I honor and share your grief and rage that I am sending y' all love and energy and endurance during what is an excruciating time to be a decent, aware human. And together we will take our place in the story and fight back with everything we have. Now for today's show, It's Saturday, April 25th. Nine days ago, it's the White House Correspondence Dinner at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C. the White House Correspondent's Dinner is an annual event. It dates back to 1921. Since 1983, the speaker at the event has been a comedian, with the dinner taking on the form of a comedy roast of the sitting president and administration. Every president since Calvin Coolidge in 1924 has attended at least one of the dinners during their term. Until Trump. He refused to attend every one of the dinners in his first term and called for a boycott of the dinner, directing members of his administration to not attend. He likewise refused to attend in 2025, but inexplicably reversing course on Saturday, April 25th. He and virtually the entire line of government, his VP, cabinet officials, they're all in attendance now. Leading up to the event, a man travels by train from from Los Angeles to Chicago and then Chicago to Washington, D.C. he has a reservation. He's staying at the Washington Hilton. He writes to his family outlining his plan and his targets at the event. They are alarmed enough to contact authorities and tell them about the man's plan. The man, armed with a handgun, shotgun, and multiple knives, approaches the perimeter of the event at 8:34pm he charges through a Secret Service checkpoint, sprinting 60ft into a corridor and raising his shotgun in the direction of a Secret Service officer, who then fires shots. Another Secret Service agent is shot in the chest, but the bullet is halted by a ballistics vest. The suspect is detained and taken into custody. People at the dinner dive under tables. Agents rush the President, the Vice President, and the cabinet members and usher them out of the room. Roughly 90 minutes later, still dressed in his tuxedo, the President addresses the nation at a press conference from the White House. Something odd happens. The conversation shifts. Not to what occurred or how security worked like it was supposed to, not to how the leadership of the United States just experienced what kindergarteners across the nation practice and prepare for throughout the school year, but to, of all things, a ballroom. Barely two minutes into his news conference that very night, he said, we need the ballroom. The next morning, he wrote on Truth Social, quote, what happened last night is exactly the reason we need a ballroom on the grounds of the White House. Over the next three days, Congressional Republicans, Senators Katie Britt, Eric Schmidt, Reps. Boebert Sheehy, and Roy, among many others, release emphatic calls to rubber stamp the 90,000 square foot ballroom that Trump wants as a result of the weekend's events. Senator Rand Paul introduces a bill to mandate the ballroom be constructed. And Senator Lindsey Graham introduces legislation requiring U.S. taxpayers to pay for the $400 million ballroom bill, which, incidentally, is the opposite of the President's prior assurance it would be built with zero cost to American taxpayer dollars and the fact that Trump already claims to have raised 350 million in funds for it. But more on that soon. The bigger question is, wait, what? We just had an attempted and thwarted assassination in a ballroom. And the response is this shows we desperately need another ballroom. If this whiplash contortion of an apparent assassination attempt into a new, urgent security justification for an event venue is baffling to you, you've come to the right place. We need to pay attention because the ballroom is one, not a new objective. It's the President's longtime obsession. Two, not about security, and three, actually not about the ballroom at all. Here's how we got here. The President has long been uniquely obsessed with his deeply secret, highly controversial and heavily litigated so called ballroom for reasons utterly disconnected from security. In July 2025, when Trump unveiled his plan to tear down the historic East Wing of the White House, he said it would be a, quote, beauty for major functions. October 20, without congressional approval or oversight, without review by any historic preservation body or planning body, without even permits, Trump unilaterally demolished the historic East Wing of the White House, a structure which has stood since 1902 at the People's House, to make way for his secretly funded ballroom. He put the price tag at $200 million, and he said it would be paid for by himself and other patriots. It has since ballooned to 400 million. And he has collected hundreds of millions of dollars from secret corporate funders again. More on that soon. But for now, you need to know that he fought to keep his original unrestrained plan secret, which was illegal. That scheme, full of kickbacks and pay to play secret corporate donors receiving special treatment by his administration in exchange for the so called donations, was only exposed at the end of last month due to the tirelessness of democracy advocates at Public Citizen, including John Gollinger, who, who is joining us here in a few minutes. But even before that secret scheme was revealed late in 2025, the National Trust for Historic Preservation sued the administration, arguing that the President had no legal authority to demolish the East Wing without the required permitting process and without congressional approval. U.S. district Judge Richard Leon, who's appointed by Republican G.W. bush, agreed, ruling that Trump violated the law and could not proceed with the ballroom construction without congressional approval. On April 18, seven days before the White House Correspondents Dinner, the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay on Judge Leon's order, allowing the construction to resume temporarily until further arguments are heard at a longer hearing, which is scheduled for one month from today on June 5th. All of this judicial scrutiny and public exposure of what Trump intended to be secret, now jeopardizing his ability to proceed with his fixation, apparently leads to Trump fomenting the most recent faux ballroom justification of a national security necessity. The Monday following the White House Correspondent's Dinner, Trump's Justice Department, currently run by his longtime personal defense attorney Todd Blanch, filed a motion written in Trump's recognizable all caps voice, explicitly linking the security breach at the dinner to the lawsuit over the President's Ballroom and asking the court to dismiss the suit as a matter of urgent national security. This despite the very same Todd Blanche declaring that the security protocols at the White House correspondence dinner worked as designed and ha it as, quote, a massive security success story. This despite the fact that we managed to somehow muddle through for 45 years without a ballroom. Since President Reagan was actually shot at the very same Washington Hilton in 1981, we have to ask ourselves, during a time in which 73% of Americans report that the economy is crushing their families, including staggering inflation, grocery gas, health care and housing cost, amid an intractable, deeply unpopular foreign war of choice, a time in which Trump's disapproval rating is an historic 57.7% in which Americans oppose the ballroom construction by a 2 to 1 margin both before and after the White House Correspondents Dinner. How and why in the world would it be that the President's absolute highest priority is building a 90,000 square foot, 400 million dollar entertainment venue? Why would he be so obsessed with a ballroom that he has talked about it on one third of every single day of this year? We have to ask ourselves, what if the ballroom is actually not about the ballroom at all? What if it's actually about the secret massive military bunker he is building under the White House as we speak? One that is utterly useless to him without the ballroom on top of it? Stay with me. Despite construction ongoing on the ballroom for five months, during which time he only described it as construction for a venue, we only learned in late March, and only because of the preservation lawsuit, that the ballroom isn't really about the ballroom. Because that's when, in court documents, the administration revealed for the first time that below the wreckage of the demolished historic East Wing, below the site of the would be ballroom, Trump is constructing right now a massive military bunker. A bunker which to be functional, requires a solid protective structure on top of it, as in a 90,000 square foot ballroom. The administration's court filings assert that, quote, an above ground slab and topping structure is needed, AKA the ballroom, to ensure that the bunker serves its security purpose. Or in other words, as Trump himself said on Air Force One in March, quote, the ballroom essentially becomes a shed for what's being built under a 400 million dollar shed to make his bunker work. So if friends, as we will see, the construction scheme to build the ballroom is actually a cover for collecting hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations. And the ballroom itself is a literal and figurative cover for the massive bunker being built beneath it. All the dirty money littered roads lead to the bunker and force us to ask, what exactly is the purpose of the massive bunker complex and why is the President so adamant that it be completed before the end of his term? Okay, let's take a quick step back. You may be thinking, hey, it's a dangerous world. Perhaps the notion of having a bomb shelter for the President is actually, actually not a bad idea. I mean, it feels alarming and worrisome to think that perhaps only Trump and Hegseth know about it and are in charge of the entire operation without any oversight or approval whatsoever. But maybe, at least in theory, a bunker itself is not a crazy idea. And good point, I say to you, good point, such a good point in fact, that we already have one. And by one I mean many. We've had a bomb shelter beneath the White House under the east wing since 1942, after the US entered World War II under FDR. It featured a bedroom and a bathroom, as well as nearby rooms with ventilation, masks, food storage and communications equipment, all fortified behind thick concrete walls and steel sheathed ceilings. The bunker was later integrated into what became known as the peoc, the Presidential Emergency Operations center, or simply the White House Bunker. It was dramatically enlarged and rebuilt once again during the early Cold War by President Harry Truman. Long and open secret in Washington, this space has periodically been updated and modernized to serve as a command center for the President as needed. With the most advanced telecommunications system, secure lines, everything that might be needed by a President and Presidential succession in the event of a national catastrophe or emergency. The PEOC was first used on 9 11. That day it was used for the first time in US history as a command center by the administration in the aftermath of the attacks. In fact, in 2014, as part of a Freedom of Information act request, the first photos ever of the PEOC were released showing the administration in the bunker after 9 11. These rare glimpses inside the top secret space showed a conference room, communication capabilities, television screens with news reports, world clocks, maps of the United States, all that. There's only one other reported use of the PEOC in 2020, when Trump was rushed to the bunker as demonstrators protested the killing of George Floyd outside the White House. He was reportedly enraged that his time in the bunker had been leaked and told the press he actually went down there during the day to inspect it. He said, quote, I was there for a tiny, short little period of time. They said it would be a good time to go down and take a look because maybe sometime you're going to need it. End quote. The bunker has always been intended as a short term function, a place to secure the President for minutes or hours, during which time the Secret Service and military plan and execute evacuation to a more secure site. These secure sites are also already in existence. There's a Presidential emergency bunker at Mount Weather in Berryville, Virginia, and another in Raven Rock bunker in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, both of which are capable of supporting 1,000 or more personnel for seamless continuation of government operations for weeks or even a month. There's also a bunker backup at the Pentagon in addition to Air Force one and the E4B doomsday plane, known as the National Airborne Operations Center. In other words, we've already long had all that security threat and planning bunker business covered. And yet right now, Trump is building a colossal secret complex and no one knows what's going in it or why. Let's be clear. We have no idea what's in the complex or why we have the complex. Hell, we didn't even know until late March that there was a complex being built. But it seems very likely we're paying for every cent of it. Remember, Trump promised that the public would not pay for the ballroom, above which now a Republican Congress is happy that we pick up the bill for. But the administration has said that the American taxpayer pays for the security components. In other words, the bunker bill. But what the hell are we paying for? Well, we don't really know, but we do have hints and reluctant admissions from the administration's court filings and Trump's stream of consciousness. Administration attorneys described the new underground complex in court documents as including protective missile resistant steel columns, beams, drone proof roofing materials and bullet ballistic and blast proof glass bomb shelters, hospital and medical facilities, protective partitioning and top secret military installations. Trump himself, after bemoaning that the, quote, stupid lawsuit forced them to reveal the existence of the complex, emphasized that it is a, quote, massive complex, that there is biodefense all over it, secure telecommunications and bomb shelters, air handling systems, drone proof ceilings and roofs. And he added that there is a hospital being built and very major medical facilities. A hospital and very major medical facilities. What?
- [21:17]
B
Why?
- [21:18]
A
Since 1942, every president has received dedicated medical care at the special White House medical unit at Walter Reed National Military Medical center, all of which is specifically structured to provide around the clock care and all within 20 minutes from the White House. Indeed, security protocols require that the President is never more than 20 ground minutes from a level one trauma center. And Air Force One contains a full surgical suite. The only reason a President would need a massive underground facility with a massive underground hospital is a scenario in which a President cannot or will not leave the White House for a very extended period of time. That scenario has never existed. Why would that scenario ever exist? And why would he specifically plan for that scenario to exist? Trying to justify this secret project under the guise of security is manipulative nonsense for myriad reasons, not least of which is that it happens to be terrible security policy. The plan runs counter to every well established presidential security protocol. A presidential emergency facility under the White House, capable of housing the President and his people on a long term basis, has never existed because, well, for one, we don't want our leaders lording over us from underground. But also because it is antithetical to literally decades of presidential security planning and evacuation protocols, all of which prioritize the urgency of getting the President out of the White House, not further in it. The White House, including its bunker, is, to state the obvious, a highly identifiable location. The whole security objective has always been to get the President to a location that is hard to locate and target. A place where people don't know where he is. If this is actually about security, then why does it run counter to security policy? Modern security doctrine centers around the need to spread risk, disperse leadership, and avoid single points of failure. This does the exact opposite. It concentrates leadership, infrastructure, and investment in one easily identified target. Presidential emergency medical care calls for stabilizing on site and then evacuating to a hospital. What it definitely does not call for is building a hospital under a known target. Why is he building a massive bunker with a hospital, allegedly for security, in a place where everyone knows exactly where it is? There is literally no hostile military or terrorist threat imaginable that is so extreme that the US Military and Secret service would need to hide the President away for months in which they would also let him stay exactly where everyone knows where he is. Logic leads us, tragically to only two scenarios. One, this is either a very, very expensive, taxpayer funded, very horrible mistake, or it's even more horrible than that. Because beyond being a tragically expensive, foolish mistake that the only other way this massive facility makes sense is if, let's say, a President, one previously so unwilling to cede power that he incited a violent insurrection in an attempt to overthrow a Democratic election, who is still falsely maintaining he won that election, and who requires all of his lackeys and appointees to also lie and claim he won, might likewise refuse to leave power at the end of his term or following a 25th Amendment impeachment and removal, and might need a cozy place for himself and his sycophant loyalists to hide. I mean, a massive, cushy underground bunker might not be your first choice, but it likely ranks above prison. And yes, this is speculation. Although to be very fair, it is heavily informed research speculation, driven not only by logic but by the President's own past actions. But of course it is. Speculation is the only alternative available when the President and his loyalists intentionally hide every detail of a project that just happens to be the President's highest priority.
- [26:40]
B
Today's episode is brought to you by Alma May is Mental Health Awareness Month. And if you're a listener of our show, you already know we don't really need a designated month to talk about mental health. We talk about it every week because we believe that naming the hard thing is the first step to doing them. I want to share something personal for a second. Therapy has in fact changed my life in ways, honestly, I didn't expect. The truth is, for me to know myself and for me to understand myself, I actually do need to process vocally. With a therapist, it's not just about getting through the hard moments. It's also about finally understanding why certain things were hard in the first place.
- [27:25]
C
Exactly. And it really is interesting. We we do know that we have bodies and that we need to use them, and that we need to exercise them and that we need to learn about them. And for some reason we have decided that only some people need to do the same with their minds. But in fact, mental health is for everyone because everyone has a mental right.
- [27:46]
A
Truth, truth.
- [27:47]
C
I mean, therapy is not for me, just about getting through hard moments. It's about finally understanding why certain things are hard for me in the first place. And having a therapist who actually understands me, who fits my life and my values and my way of seeing the world, made all the difference. Most of us have moved past the question of whether therapy works. We know it does. Over 80% of people report feeling genuinely better within six months of starting therapy. So the question that actually stops people is how do I find the right therapist? Where do I even start? And what if I can't afford it? Finding a therapist can feel like a part time job. You're googling checking insurance websites that haven't been updated since 2014 leaving voicemails that don't get returned, wondering if the person you found is even the right fit for you. Your background, your specific struggles, your identity. It can be exhausting and frustrating. And that is often what makes people give up before they even get started. So that's the problem that ALMA was built to solve. ALMA has a directory of over 26,000 therapists. Diverse therapists with different specialties, different life experiences and different identities. And 98% of them take insurance. You can search without even creating an account and filter by things that actually matter to you. Gender, race, therapeutic approach, what you're specifically working through. Most people find their match on the very first try. And 95% of Alma clients connect with a therapist within one week. So think about that. You could start this mental health awareness month with a real appointment on the calendar.
- [29:11]
B
You know the cost piece because I know that's where a lot of people get stuck. Clients with insurance pay an average of $20 per session and ALMA has a free insurance cost estimator, so you know exactly what you'll pay before you ever book. No surprises. Over a million people have already found care through Alma. Get started now at hello Alma.com we can. That's hello a l m a.com w e c A N.
- [29:46]
A
I am very thankful to have on the show today someone who has doggedly pursued this fiasco beyond speculation into facts we can trace. John Gollinger serves as the democracy advocate for Public Citizen, one of the country's leading government accountability watchdog organizations. John and Public Citizen brought a lawsuit forcing the exposure of the White House contract, which the administration was legally required to release but kept hidden from the public, unearthing a secret scheme of quid pro quo for anonymous corporate donors. Rampant conflict of interest, no bid contracts, kickbacks and corruption, including specifically exempting the White House from conflicts of interest. Rules for John Gollinger follow the money is not a political adage. It's a tireless, courageous vocation. John has devoted his career to exposing how corporate dollars shape public policy, pushing for campaign finance reform and holding elected officials and institutions accountable. Prior to joining Public Citizen, John was an assistant District attorney and investigator in the Special Prosecutors unit of the White Collar Crime Division in the San Francisco District Attorney's where he led criminal investigations into public corruption. Thank you for being here, John. We're so grateful for your time.
- [31:12]
D
Thank you, Amanda. My pleasure.
- [31:14]
A
Let's start when the president first talks about his ballroom. It's July 2025. He gives two promises about the project. He says one, nothing about the existing White House will be changed and two, that the American taxpayer would not pay a penny. It would be funded by private donors. Then in October, bulldozers suddenly and shockingly demolished the East Wing. So you, having spent your career uncovering the rotting intersection of money and politics, you and public citizen get real curious about anonymous private donations. Eventually this leads to FOIA requests and lawsuits, exposing the structure of the scheme. But this is a pretty unprecedented situation. So what was your thought thinking in July? How did it evolve and just how did you approach this whole situation?
- [32:07]
D
Sure. No, I think I appreciate that lens and it's good to think about how we got into this because in so many of these issues involving corruption and money, it's so easy to sort of keep barreling ahead to the next thing and never take a break and reflect. But I will say you just took me right back to July of 2025. And so, as I'm sure most if not everyone listening did in their own way, January 20th through July 2025 was a blur. And also every day was incredibly intense. And whatever issue it is, or personal thing it is, we were dealing with my case. I'm here in Washington D.C. so the city was under siege, literally. And on my beat, democracy and corruption. Actually, even before that, I'd been, you know, investigating people I'd never heard of but clearly were going to be in power. Susie Wiles, who became the White House Chief of staff and had been a lobbyist for big corporations. I did a report right after the election on her. Pam Bondi, same thing, before she became ag, did a report on her. So that's all to say In July of 2025, I was very focused on a whole bunch of other things. Certainly when the end of the month when this announcement came out, it was notable that the President had announced they were going to do something, something significant with the White House. It wasn't really a corruption issue yet. It was sort of a flag and we didn't know how it was going to play out. But as you say, over the subsequent two months, which involved a lot of behind the scenes activity that we're beginning to uncover, it completely transformed, I will say, before the bulldozers hit the East Wing, the week before, President Trump held a banquet in the existing White house for 130 or so donors, lobbyists, fundraisers for this ballroom to thank them for giving. So it was a week before and when the context was still the East Wing wouldn't be changed, they were going to add this thing on the back. That's when it became like a big corruption red flag for us because they brought corporations, lobbyists, fundraisers, some of whom didn't want to be known. But I've been looking at the video and reporters did, too, and we figured out who some of them are. And then a bunch of people, I'm sure, who didn't show up that gave. So it became the corruption issue when they celebrated, in effect, the corruption in front of our faces in the People's House. And then it transformed into a emotional issue, I think, when we all watched the bulldozers out of the blue smack and demolish the East Wing. So those two things together made this from being like an issue we were monitoring and was on my radar to being a center issue. So the week of the bulldozing, while the bulldozers were still slamming into the White House, I filed the Freedom of Information act request, which was really like a one page filing with the National Park Service, because I'd learned from a tip that the way they were funding this scheme was the money going to a charity, going to the Park Service, going back to the White House, and that there was some kind of document codifying that arrangement that I wanted to. So that's the Freedom of Information act request that I made that ultimately resulted in us suing and getting the document that you mentioned at the top.
- [35:11]
A
Okay, so two days after the bulldozers demolished the East Wing, that is when he announces that over the last several months, he apparently culminating in the celebration dinner of the private donors, he had already raised $350 million for the ballroom, and he releases a partial list of the donors. Now that I have the benefit of reading the contract that you had exposed, presumably only those who have agreed to be named, since it guarantees their anonymity. But there's 21 corporations on this partial list that he releases, plus CBS News uncovers an additional three. So we have 24 total corporations that we know about that have funded this. You got Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Lockheed, Booze, Palantir, hp, Comcast, T Mobile. Within days of this release, you God bless y'. All. At Public Citizen, you complete a deep dive of the 24 corporations, and you find that these donors aren't just, you know, overflowing with patriotism, as Trump has characterized them, but they are overflowing with massive financial interests before the federal government. So they have billions of dollars in federal contracts they want to keep or win. They have billions at stake in federal regulatory and enforcement decisions, meaning the federal government is actively investigating them for misconduct against the American public. And the government is deciding their fate while they are giving to the President's pet fixation. So can you tell us just a little more about what you found when you dug into those 24? Sure.
- [36:57]
D
And I should say that the White House didn't just release even that partial list of the donors out of the goodness of their heart. They didn't do it before the East Wing was demolished and there was huge public outcry, huge public pushback, massive media spotlight on what the hell is going on here. And so under that pressure and how it was being funded, now they did do a dinner at the White House and that was televised. We could, you can look at it. So a bunch of people were obviously identifiable, some of the corporate heads and some other shady characters, but they released the list under pressure and actually said, well, there's a few more that we're not going to tell you about. So they, they actually hinted at this anonymity. We didn't realize. What it appears to be is. It's like the heart of the whole scheme, which we have yet to really fully know. But I will say that did give us enough, the corporations that were listed, the 15 or so billionaires and their foundations that were listed, to put our whole team. So my boss here at Public Citizen sort of pulled a bunch of us together who do different investigatory things on different beats, put us all on this for a couple weeks, and we looked at every donor and at least in that short time period, every government contract we could find in the last five years to sort of give it a frame for how much money was at stake here. Every enforcement action, whether it's Department of Justice, criminal investigation, labor rights violation, environmental violation, antitrust, what have you that was facing or had been dropped against these companies and what, you know, other types of interests facing them. This is just, that was just like a piece of it, because there's probably tons more that we didn't find. But we did find that majority of the companies listed, 16 out of 24 had government contracts, had received them, or were, were up to get them worth 279 billion in the previous five years. It's billion with a B. That includes Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen, as you mentioned, and some of the biggest government contractors. I will also mention it includes Ripple and Coinbase, who are two of the biggest crypto companies, both playing a huge role in our elections this year. Ripple. I just read in the paper today, the head of Ripple, Chris Larson, is putting in millions into a New York City congressional race, even though he and his Company are based in California, so. So all this is sort of power politics, using this ballroom as a way to get to Trump, as a way to impress upon the people running the government for now that they should be able to get what they want. We lastly found that they also had tons of money that they'd given to the elections. So there was also over 960 million in the last election cycle given by all these donors. There's some others on there that other people should look into. There's a, you know, Scientology enthusiast in there that has some interesting ties and wants. We haven't figured out what some of these folks who gave the money actually want. Perhaps nothing, but I suspect most of them want or have gotten something. And we need to find out.
- [39:49]
A
Y' all should look this up. It's called Banquet of Greed, and that is the report that Public Citizen put out where you can find all of this data. But the fact that we are paying, as American taxpayers, we are paying these corporations $279 billion. Corruption is not a victimless crime. Someone is always paying for it. And in this case, that someone is us. The other part that I found really disturbing was that 14 of the 24 corporate donors were facing federal enforcement actions. Many of them were suspended or deprioritized. This is another way that they are not victimless crimes. If corporations hurt everyday Americans and the government investigates that and there is a claim on behalf of Americans that then the government drops because that corporation has paid off a government official. That is not a victimless crime because that hurts us and we don't have any recourse. So there is a correlation between these corporations that gave and administration action relieving them of responsibility. There's no way that you can prove causation in this case, but there is certainly correlation that. Trump's National Labor Relations Board withdrew its prior claims that Apple violated workers rights. Trump's administration dismissed charges that the SEC had previously filed against Coinbase alleging securities violations. They withdrew an appeal, seeking higher penalties against Ripple, who you just mentioned, over securities law violations, and closed an investigation into T Mobile for its allegedly anti competitive merger. Union Pacific had an $85 billion merger with Norfolk Southern and it faced antitrust scrutiny.
- [41:49]
D
Still pending.
- [41:50]
A
Still pending. But in August, Trump fired the board member who opposed that merger. I mean, there is just so much here. It seemed for good reason, they wanted to keep it secret.
- [42:04]
D
Yeah, there's tons of tons of smoke. It's difficult to prove causation. I will say it's not impossible. I mean, that's What I did for a living for. For a few years in San Francisco was look, investigate, and in some cases, prove criminal bribery. While we're not asserting that here because we don't have that those facts, there are people who know if deals were made, if there were conversations or signal chats or emails between donors, lobbyists, fundraisers, government officials that asked for anything or gave anything, even if it's a meeting or a promise for, you know, review of an action. That's all information we. We want to know. So I'm raising that because there's a lot of people that listen to your show that might themselves have information or know how to get it. I will also say what's super interesting to me, and a lot of what I'm doing now and what we're focusing on is it's not just that checks were written and checks were deposited and checks were spent, but tons of people managed that whole process. There's a lot of people, those senior and junior folks working for the charity, the Trust for the National Mall, that's the conduit for the money. And my understanding is a lot of those folks, you know, they're there because they care about parks. They wanted to fix up our mall. They didn't want to be used for a political fundraising scheme. So, I mean, we would love any of folks in that group, in the companies who may not be involved in politics, may be there for other decent reasons that have heard anything or know anything to come forward. Because whether it's now or months or years from now when there's subpoenas and search warrants and witness testimony and congressional investigations, there is a lot of information out there. What we can do right now is what you're doing, which is take what we see, highlight concerns, and push back. And that's. That's what people are doing. And so we try to do every day.
- [44:03]
B
Okay, I have to tell you about something from a brand that I'm pretty familiar with, and I think that all of our listeners must try. It's Gatorade lower sugar, and it has everything you need for hydration. It's all the Gatorade electrolytes you love and 75% less sugar than Gatorade thirst quencher. We talk a lot about doing hard things here, but one of the most important hard things, taking care of yourself, even on the busiest days, recording, traveling, juggling family and work. Supporting your body helps you stay steady. Maybe you're headed into a workout. Running between meetings or driving your kids to practice. It has no artificial flavors sweeteners or colors. And it hydrates better than water with 75% less sugar and all the electrolytes of Gatorade Thirst Quencher. Try Gatorade Lower Sugar today. It has the electrolytes Gatorade is known for with 75% less sugar and no artificial flavors, sweeteners or colors. You can find Gatorade Lower Sugar online or in stores near you.
- [45:02]
A
I try to be intentional about the products that I buy for my family. So when it comes to laundry, I choose All Free Clear detergent. You all know this about me. I'm always thinking about the small everyday choices that add up to how we take care of ourselves and the people we love. And in our house, sensitive skin is just part of our reality. So I'm always trying to make choices that help keep everyone comfortable. That is why it matters to me that All Free Clear is the number one detergent brand recommended by dermatologists for sensitive skin, and that it's 100% free from dyes, perfumes and parabens. And the thing I appreciate is that it actually works. It tackles tough stains and odors, you know, real life, messy everyday stuff, but it's still safe for sensitive skin. So whether it's workout clothes, kids clothes, or just the constant rotation of laundry, I don't have to overthink it. Pick up a bottle of All Free Clear detergent for your next laundry day.
- [45:59]
C
This is something, you know, I don't talk about lightly, but I certainly know how overwhelming it can be to begin to deal with an eating disorder. It's not just about food. It's about your mind, your body, your world, your energy. And when you're in that place, even basic things can feel impossible, let alone trying to navigate treatment, appointments, insurance, all of it. Equip Health is a fully virtual evidence based program for eating disorder treatment that you can do from home. And what really stands out to me is how much they walk you through the process. With Equip, you're not doing it alone. You're matched with a full care team, a therapist, a dietitian, a medical provider, and even mentors. So you're supported from every angle, not just one piece of it. They work with people of all ages and across different diagnoses. It's covered by insurance, and there's no wait list. If you think that you or a loved one could be struggling with an eating disorder, don't wait to get help. Visit Equip Health Hardthings to learn more. That's Equip Health Hardthings.
- [47:07]
A
So If I'm a person, say, who loves federal protected land and wants to preserve that and so pursued a role in the National Park Service, because that's what I thought I was getting. And then I find myself in the middle of what seems like a money laundering, lobbying, covert effort, and that makes me uncomfortable. I can reach out to you directly, John. And how do I do that specifically? And how do I know that I'll be protected in that.
- [47:44]
D
That's a good question. We would love to hear from, from folks, My understanding is the House Natural Resources Committee, the Democrats, the ranking members, at least Jared Huffman, his office is looking into this. He wrote a letter to the Park Service outlining concerns and asking questions about the ballroom and the fundraising scheme. They're doing other things as we speak. My understanding is they already have a whistleblower hotline available. Jared Huffman, you know, Congressmember from California who's the ranking member, meaning the senior most Democrat, not the chairperson, but in line to be the chair if the House changes hands, changes parties in this next election. Representative Huffman would be the chair. And his staff, I know, are concerned about this and would love to hear from folks, as you say, who you know, are working for the Park Service for, for great reasons and don't necessarily want to endanger their, their career and their, their love of their, of their job and, and our parks, but are uncomfortable being in the middle of this scheme. I know they would love to hear from them. And if people are comfortable, I at Public Citizen would be happy to hear from them as well. And then people can also think of other creative ways to get the information out, because the ballroom is one piece. But my understanding is that the same scheme is being replicated by the Trump administration to do other things. And so there's other good people, I imagine, within government who are being stuck in a very difficult position of having to basically effectuate or cover up or look the other way when money's moving in a way that at least seems sketchy, if not illegal. And, and they should find some way to do something about it best they can.
- [49:20]
C
Yes.
- [49:20]
A
And speaking of a template and a model for what is being replicated, the contract that you unearthed, so you referenced that before you had received a tip that this was all happening under this contract, kind of shadowy agreement that nobody had seen. So October 22, you submit a Freedom of Information Act, a FOIA request to the National Park Service and Department of the Interior, asking them to release the funding agreement contract. They incredibly, and in violation of the law, ignore it. December 22nd. You then are forced to file a lawsuit to compel the release of the agreement. April 22, three days before the White House Correspondent's Dinner. A judge agrees with you, orders the disclosure. We all finally see, thanks to y', all, the contract that no one else knew existed. It's called the Philanthropic Support Agreement, signed all the way back in October. I found it amazing. Tell me some of the things that jumped out at you when you were finally able to see the agreement and why wasn't that just as a matter of course made available as it should have been to the American people?
- [50:40]
D
It should have been. The government never said why they didn't give it to us. The only thing I heard, I heard this through the press because reporters asked why didn't you release this document to the American people on very high profile issue that was clearly a public record. I heard through the press that the Trump administration, administration's mouthpieces said security issues, which is, you know, unfortunately a catch all has been for a long time and remains a catch all defense that tries to obscure that they don't want you to get it because there's something to hide. So we got the document. I'm still unpacking it and doing some follow up. But I will say it jumped out to me that in a 14 page document it said the word anonymous or anonymity 10 times in 14 pages and had special sections clearly binding the charity, which is not a government entity, to abide by this anonymous restriction. And then there was also a section of the document that clearly carves out the conflict of interest restrictions that apply here even in this document to donors that may have conflicts with the Park Service. Right, because the money is flowing through the charity of the Park Service. So it does say that if a donor has a concession contract, for example, a company with Park Service concession contracts, that the charity is supposed to flag that as a concern. In our view, that's a flat out. They shouldn't be giving money to the Park Service if they want contracts from the Park Service. But at least that's flagged. Regarding the White House, the president or every other all the agencies you mentioned, justice and and others. There's no conflict restrictions. So it's all the companies you mentioned have some business before the federal government. The contracts we discussed enforcement actions. Unless they have something to do with the Park Service, this contract says we don't care, there's no conflict. In our view, we're turning a blind eye. But I think everyone knows in this moment it's Donald Trump and His close advisors that are basically making all the big calls in the federal government. So any real legitimate conflict of interest protections in something like this should say, first and foremost, the President, Donald Trump in this case shouldn't have anything to do with anything these donors want. Otherwise, them giving money to his pet project is pay to play, period.
- [52:56]
A
Right. And the contract itself sets out that the federal parties, which is the President's office, will be the one to solicit these gifts. So they're the ones passing it off to the so called charity, the trust. So the way this works is there is a trust, right, that the trust is this philanthropy that is receiving all of the donations. The president and his office is soliciting all the donations. Also party to this agreement is the Department of Interior and the National Park Service, because the White House is a national park. So they're pretending like the only conflict that could exist is with the Park Service as opposed to the myriad other. We've already seen the nlrb, the sec, that all of the other federal agencies that have enforcement actions. I haven't known the Park Service to be overabundant in its enforcement actions. I don't know that part of the law. But that's not the one I think of when I think of corporate interests. And we've already seen how there's a correlation between the lack of enforcement actions and these donations. So the other thing I thought was super interesting, number one, giving to the President's pet project large sums of money because it's shown as being a philanthropic effort is not only a tax write off in this case, it is also these corporations are not reporting it under the Lobbying Disclosure act, which they should be.
- [54:37]
D
Yeah, especially because I've heard from multiple sources that the soliciting you mentioned, the contract, which is I've never seen before. I've talked to experts who've never seen, as you said, has the White House the executive residence, which is like a obscure, you know, administrative part of the White House that's supposed to keep the windows clean and the tables set and that kind of thing is responsible on paper for raising the money. But what I've heard is they've delegated that responsibility to Meredith o', Rourke, who's the President's chief fundraiser. She's a private fundraiser who runs a company called Forward Strategies that has raised Trump World money for super PACs and other things for a while. But on this and some other things, my understanding is she was given point on fundraising and then lobbyists for big corporations in Washington D.C. were enlisted to then do the actual asking of their clients and saying, in effect, clients, you've hired me to lobby the government, to get you off the hook for enforcement action you don't want to be accountable for, to get you a juicy government contract, to get you a regulation that you want, or to stop a regulation you don't. Here's a way to get what you've hired me for. You're paying me to give you this advice, write a check for $5 million to the president's project and basically will help me grease the wheels. I mean, that's the scheme as we understand it. And that puts lobbyists sort of in the middle of the whole thing. I will say the closure of the loop that you described. The money coming in through the charity that's subsidized by the American people through the tax write off part to the Park Service, goes back to the executive residence in the White House to spend. So all the money's being raised, funneled through these parties, laundered if you will, and given back to the same folks who then have the power to grant all the wishes that the donors could ever dream of.
- [56:30]
A
And there's also a kickback component to it. The partner in the agreement is the trust, the so called philanthropy. And they receive 2.5% on every one of the first $200 million and 2% on anything above that. So since Trump's claims to have already raised $350 million for the project, that means that that trust has already yielded 8 million in kickbacks before the construction even started. There is also not anything that says what the trust does with that. There's also, since the White House has been explicitly excluded from conflicts of interest, no reason to believe there isn't some kind of other arrangement with respect to that $8 million and counting. And I also just wonder, big question here. Since Senator Graham has suggested and proposed legislation that the American people pay the $400 million, what the hell is going to happen to the 350 million that he's already raised? And perhaps the answer to that is what's stated in the contract, which says any amount in excess that is not spent, we're just going to decide what happens to it later. Yeah, literally the parties, they get to decide what happens to that money.
- [58:08]
B
I've got an update on something I said I'd try. I started taking iM8's daily Ultimate Essentials because I was feeling a little off, low energy. My digestion wasn't great, just not as sharp as I wanted to be. And what I like is how simple it is. It's basically 16 supplements in one drink. Give your body what it deserves with im8 go to im8health.com hard things and use Code Hard Things for a free welcome kit 5 free travel sachets plus 10% off your order. That's I am number 8 h e a l t h.com hardthings code hardthings for a free welcome kit 5 free travel sacheots plus 10% off your order im8health.com hardthings code hardthings these statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. OCD is highly treatable with the right approach and I think the key is finding specialized therapy because OCD operates differently than other conditions and standards like talk therapy isn't recommended for OCD because it can actually make it worse. That's why I want to tell you about NO cd. NOCD is the world's leading provider of specialized OCD treatment with licensed therapists trained in exposure and response prevention ERP therapy, the most effective treatment available for ocd. As someone who's talked a lot about doing hard things, I know that asking for help is the hard thing covered by insurance for over 155 million Americans and you'll be met with understanding, not judgment. If that resonates with you or someone on your team in your life, don't wait. Visit nocd.com and book a free 15 minute call to learn how NOCD can help. That's n o c d.com Today's show is proudly supported by Apple Gift Card, the smart and versatile gift for every graduate in your life. We have a graduation coming up in our family and it's been making me think a lot about what this moment actually represents. It's not just a milestone, it's this real transition into a new phase of life. That's what I love about Apple Gift Card. It gives the graduates the power to decide what they need, okay, whether it's something to help them get set up or tools for learning or even just a way to relax and recharge. I don't think of myself as a great gift giver. This gift really is the one that people and oftentimes teenage graduates respect the most because this is giving somebody a gift to their journey and it says I trust you to choose what's next. Visit applegiftcard.apple.com to find the perfect graduation gift. Today.
- [61:22]
A
I'm going to say what alarms me most about all of this, the level of self dealing and corporate ownership over this administration. There is a certain regrettable numbing that I have about that. But what I don't feel numb about at all, which is the other piece of this. So for more than eight months, the construction is being discussed, it's being debated, justifications are being made, lawsuits are being filed. The entire time. This is presented exclusively as an issue for construction of an event venue. Eight months, that's it. Then on March 29th through the 31st, in filings responding to the preservation lawsuits and on Air Force One, Trump admits that they are actually building a massive bunker, that it's all maybe about the actual bunker. So March 29th he says he is building a quote, massive complex under the White House, describing the ballroom as, quote, a shed for what's being built under. On March 30th and 31st, the court, in the court case, the administration admits it's building this underground. So security related infrastructure. Did anyone know anything about this bunker before the administration was forced to admit it? Trump literally said we had to admit this because of this quote, stupid lawsuit. Are you aware that anyone knew about the bunker because it was allegedly all about a venue?
- [63:00]
D
Certainly I was not aware that that was the main justification for the ballroom, was that it was some kind of, you know, cover literally for a military installation. Through what the administration has said and used to argue for the ballroom, we've learned about the East Wing and what they're building, but it's all been in the context of trying to justify the ballroom rather than the other way around. So it's, it's been brand new and I think a sign that the President and the White House know they've lost the American people on the ballroom. Even with all that's occurred in the last six months, even with all that's occurred recent days, polls and just talking to people make it clear the American people don't think the priority for the White House is to build a $400 million ballroom funded by, you know, self interested companies where the East Wing once stood. And most Americans of all stripes think it's a horrible idea and the wrong priority for, for this country. It definitely is a new flip. I will say, you know, it's, it's not a new concept that people in power would try to make security and fear be an argument for, for what they want and sort of a shield against criticism that they don't like. That's not new at all.
- [64:19]
A
No, it's certainly not new for this administration. I mean, we had to, we had to stop offshore wind installations as a matter of, quote, national security. I mean, there's everything in this administration comes down to national security because it's the one thing that you can't touch. I'm just wondering if this is a tail wag, the dog situation. I mean, I don't know why people aren't more alarmed by this. Are they using the bunker security as a justification for the ballroom, or is the ballroom a cover for the bunker? Because I'm just saying that this is wildly unprecedented and feels very dangerous because this has happened many Times before. When FDR first established the White House bunker in 42, it was a federal project done through established government channels with oversight and approval. When Eisenhower and Kennedy expanded it, it was through the defense budgets and appropriation. George Bush modernized it and it was through federal funding and national appropriations. Like these were often classified line items, but every time they were still authorized by Congress. And they were also upgrades that were integrating into existing infrastructure. So they were described as security updates and they were authorized as. By Congress as such. And here we have a brand new, radically divergent structure based on what is being described to us unlike anything we've ever had at the White House that was deliberately kept secret and might still be secret if not for the lawsuit passed off as a venue for guests, with apparently no way to account for Congress knowing anything about it, authorizing it, and potentially the effort to raise money saying it was a ballroom was to keep eyes off of the ballroom, which was actually a bunker. I don't know why people aren't talking about this.
- [66:28]
D
Well, I mean, I think it's. It's hard to believe anything Donald Trump says for good reason. And so, I mean, I think you're right in that this is transforming the debate at some level into, you know, into a need for oversight of the whole thing, not just the ballroom. There are, I think, you know, complicated questions about what can be looked at below ground in a public light. I will say that in the litigation by the preservation group on the ballroom, the judge in that case was given closed door looks at. I mean, from what I can tell from the filings, everything. And the judge in that case said the ballroom itself, what was on top, had no national security implications whatsoever. And that didn't speak to, like, what they're actually doing underground. But it did say that a judge who looked at everything that the Secret Service apparently showed him behind closed doors said the ballroom wasn't needed for national security and it could be halted until Congress approved it, if they ever did. And that the ballroom itself, putting it on top, did nothing to improve national security one way or the other. So in a way, obviously, they're physically connected now, but I think they are two totally different things. It could be nothing on top of whatever's underground. It could be a different structure. And if they build this thing one way or another, I also think the question would will become in a couple years, what to do with it. Because if they ultimately complete what Trump has in mind and there's a new president in 2029, immediately the question's going to be what happens to it.
- [68:03]
A
I understand what you're saying. Strategically, to fight the ballroom, we need to keep these disparate issues and say you can't conflate the security that's underground with the ballroom that's overground, because you're trying to get us not to. To be able to. To stop the ballroom. And that is undoubtedly true. However, I'm saying, why isn't Congress looking at the freaking bunker as well? Because much like we need to know the purpose, the money, the funding, why you're building the ballroom, and whether that's justified, I would argue it's maybe more of a concern that we know why a massive, never necessary before bunker is being built below the White House that intentionally, no one knew about that is a concern.
- [69:07]
D
Absolutely. Congress should be looking into that. Congress should be all over it. I completely agree.
- [69:15]
A
Are you aware of anyone doing that
- [69:17]
D
the scrutiny that we're giving to the whole thing is forcing that discussion? I can't say that I know of anyone in Congress who is making the underground bunker their focus. It's a sign of the cockamamie strategy, if we can even call it that, that, that the President has with this whole thing, which is the arguments he's making to justify, desperately justify the project. He wants the ballroom, you know, to symbolize his legacy, or whatever you want to call it, and to be a party pad for his friends is actually forcing this thing that he and maybe others didn't want to get any scrutiny at all into the light, at least enough that you and I can be talking about it here on the podcast, because they told us about it. Whether that leads to this Congress or the next Congress stepping up and doing the job they need to do, which is oversee it. And as you mentioned, it all should be done. You know, whether it's at public hearings or closed door hearings, the Congress and the country should coherently develop the White House above ground, underground, inside, outside. This is the people's House. And so what's built There needs to be something that's done, you know, coherently in a way that makes sense and isn't just a one off for whoever's occupying it, as the judge said in the lawsuit, as who's just a steward, basically a tenant that's going to be out in a few years, but as something that's going to be around hopefully for a long time for all of us to appreciate as the People's House.
- [70:47]
A
I thank you for doing the work that you're doing as a watchdog organization. I don't know how you even set up a to do list every day for the endless requirements on your time. And I really appreciate the way that you are pursuing transparency. I mean, we've been talking about literally what happens under the ground, beyond what we can see and beyond what people are admitting. And you're doing that all the time. And so on behalf of, you know, all of us who are paying for it and all of us who want the People's House to be doing the people's business and not corporate billionaire business, we thank you for what you do and appreciate it. And we're all going to go check out Public Citizen and, and support your work and just thanks for representing us.
- [71:42]
D
I appreciate that. No, it mean it. I consider it an honor to do this work. It sometimes is easier than other times and once in a while we're able to produce something that clearly makes an impact that people can see that's always fulfilling. But also the times that, that I do work and, and the people that I work with do work that doesn't get seen, I think is also equally fulfilling. And so I really appreciate you giving us a little bit of a shout out and, and I hope that people continue to, to push back in every way they can to make sure, you know, this is a country that belongs to us, the real people, people.
- [72:14]
A
I love it. And not to add anything to your to do list, but I was thinking when I was reading that agreement, there's that, that section 7 of the contract and it says that the trust has to keep all accounting records and reporting and submit them to the National Park Service. Could we not FOIA those records?
- [72:30]
D
I'm writing it down right now.
- [72:32]
A
If that's a requirement, then that means that the accounting records which might show us the amounts that were given are in the hands of the National Park Service.
- [72:42]
D
I think that's true, whether it's through that mechanism or another. And I've heard a few people say maybe we'll never know who these anonymous donors are. I'M almost certain that's not true. And as someone who in my law enforcement work did search warrants and was able to get, with a judge's approval, bank records from what turned out to be effectively bribery conduits, I mean, there is a money trail. And so whether we get it now or a few years from now is the only question that people who are in the middle of it, I think have both a duty and opportunity to push this out sooner. But I'll put that on my to do list. I'm always happy to take a specific suggestion like that. I can effectuate it. Appreciate that.
- [73:26]
A
Oh, you're wonderful. You're wonderful. Thank you for all you do. And we're going to be cheering for you and watching for the next reports.
- [73:34]
D
Great. I'll get back to it. Thanks, Amanda. Appreciate your time.
- [73:37]
A
Thanks, John.
- [73:38]
D
Bye. Bye.
- [73:39]
C
We are proud to say that We Can Do Hard Things is an independent production brought to you by us, Treat Media. Treat Media makes art for humans who want to stay human. And you can follow us at We Can Do Hard Things on Instagram.