Nothing short-circuits critical thinking like Trump Derangement Syndrome. When President Trump proposed building a grand White House ballroom, the predictable outrage machine kicked into overdrive—but this time, something unexpected happened. The reflexive hostility that once unified the left is starting to crack, looking more like a liability than a principle.
For years, the left’s default mode has been to treat anything Trump touches as a desecration of democracy itself. But somewhere deep within the ranks of the left’s most loyal institutions, a startling moment of clarity has emerged over this very ballroom—and it’s rattling the narrative keepers. Suddenly, the old guard of the liberal media is admitting Trump actually has a legitimate point.
Take, for instance, the Washington Post editorial board’s latest move. In a twist that is sure to leave the resistance apoplectic, the board defended President Trump’s White House ballroom. You can almost hear the collective shriek echoing across the Beltway cocktail circuit.
The Post’s editorial board didn’t exactly launch a Trump fan club, but its tone was undeniably different. Instead of dismissing Trump’s project as yet another reckless vanity move—the way most on the left have—they analyzed the issue with nuance. They described the demolition of the East Wing, which will make room for the new ballroom, as symbolic of two competing worldviews.
The teardown of the White House’s East Wing this week is a Rorschach test. Many see the rubble as a metaphor for President Donald Trump’s reckless disregard of norms and the rule of law, a reflection of his willingness to bulldoze history and a temple to a second Gilded Age, paid for by corporate donors. Others see what they love about Trump: A lifelong builder boldly pursuing a grand vision, a change agent unafraid to decisively take on the status quo and a developer slashing through red tape that would stymie any normal politician.
The editors note that the ballroom is a “reasonable idea” and acknowledge that “privately, many alumni of the Biden and Obama White Houses recognize the long-overdue need for an event space like what Trump is creating.” Imagine how many of Trump’s critics may denounce the project publicly, but privately feel that it’s something that White House has needed for a long, long time.
We’ve made the point here at PJ Media plenty of times before that it’s embarrassing for the White House to put up expensive yet tacky tents on the South Lawn for state dinners.
The ballroom Trump is building is long overdue. It is seriously tacky to host state dinners in temporary tents as you can see in this photo in 2009. pic.twitter.com/phQAsDO43U
— Matt Margolis (@mattmargolis) October 23, 2025
The editorial board also notes that that VIPs who attended these events had to use porta-potties. That’s not just tacky—it’s absurd. The idea that building a proper venue might actually be a rational solution is almost too much for Trump’s critics to process.
ICYMI: Katie Porter’s Ex Just Broke His Silence And… Yikes!
Let’s be real—if Joe Biden or Barack Obama had proposed a beautiful new White House ballroom, the media would be gushing over its architectural significance, waxing poetic about “progress.” But since it’s Trump, it’s practically an impeachable offense. The irony is glaring: the outrage isn’t about the project—it’s about the president. Trump Derangement Syndrome strikes again.
Some on the left claim the process is what’s really problematic, and the editorial board had an answer for that, too.
“After a fence jumper got inside the White House in 2014, it was obvious that better perimeter fencing needed to be installed,” they explained. “But doing so involved five public meetings of the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) over two years, as members took pains to ensure the fencing complied with environmental rules. Construction didn’t begin until July 2019.”
The editorial cited other examples of bureaucratic paralysis as well.
Or consider the modest Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial near the National Air and Space Museum. Congress authorized its creation in 1999. Architect Frank Gehry was selected in 2009. The NCPC rejected Gehry’s initial design proposal in 2014 before approving a revised plan the next year. The Commission of Fine Arts gave its approval in 2017. The memorial wasn’t opened until late 2020. By contrast, Eisenhower planned and executed D-Day in about six months.
That’s the heart of the editorial’s argument: Trump’s instinct to push past red tape and “just get it done” isn’t reckless—it’s necessary. By treating Trump not as a villain but as a builder—someone taking on government dysfunction head-on—the editorial inadvertently undercuts the left’s core political strategy: hysterical opposition to everything Trump does.
