Trump Sued Over Attempts to Remake DC Landmarks

0:00The thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works. At IBM, we've seen this firsthand. But by embedding AI across HR, IT, and procurement processes, we've reduced costs by millions, slash repetitive tasks, and freed thousands of hours for strategic work. Now we're helping companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business, IBM. Dog grooming genius here. Most people see a busy dog salon, but I see operational excellence. Thanks to Genius from Global Payments. Scheduling, personalized.

0:42Checkouts, instant. Absolutely genius. From game day crowds to every groomer in this shop, Genius keeps everything flowing seamlessly. Schnauzer is styled. Flawless execution. Big league reliability for any business. That's genius. You need to make a huge presentation in an hour. Adobe Acrobat uses AI to take all your documents and generate a presentation with a single click. Build slides quickly and streamline the process. Need a last-minute pitch deck? Do that with Acrobat. Need to level up your presentation design? Do that with Acrobat. You have 30-plus documents that need to be simplified into a proposal.

1:25Do that. Do that. Do that with Acrobat. Learn more at adobe.com slash do that with Acrobat. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. The reflecting pool at the Lincoln Memorial is one of the most iconic spots in D.C., and now it's become another target of President Trump's attempts to remake some of the Capitol's historic landmarks. He's repainted the reflecting pool in a shade of blue called American Flag Blue. And over the years as a developer, I've probably built more than 100 swimming pools. A non-profit filed a lawsuit on Monday to stop Trump from altering the Lincoln Memorial without the consultations, environmental assessments, and public comment required before altering a registered historic landmark.

2:21It follows the pattern of Trump's other renovations, like tearing down the East Wing to build a ballroom, or closing the Kennedy Center for two years for renovations, projects that have drawn lawsuits from historical societies and nonprofits for similar reasons. My guest is former federal prosecutor Nima Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers. Nima, tell us what the Cultural Landscape Foundation is arguing in its lawsuit. Nima, tell us what the Cultural Landscape Foundation is arguing in its lawsuit. The lawsuit is alleging that the Trump administration didn't comply with federal law, specifically procedural law related to historic monuments and environmental analyses.

3:11This is similar to the Administrative Procedure Act arguments that many of the plaintiffs have been using to slow down the Trump administration. Now, those laws essentially say that when a monument is altered in any way, there has to be the opportunity for public comment, consultation with other federal agencies, assessment of environmental impacts. And again, this is all procedural. It doesn't mean that the administration has to listen to any of this feedback. They can move ahead. But it can slow down this process, which is what the plaintiffs are trying to do, because Congress, who would probably be the best plaintiff, is not stepping in because obviously both houses are controlled by Republicans.

3:59And I mean, the Trump administration is well aware of these requirements because they're being sued in other cases. So we're ignoring similar requirements. So it's not as if they're not aware of it. Oh, there's no question. And this really raises the fundamental constitutional issue. What happens if the executive branch that is tasked with enforcing the law doesn't follow the law? Who's going to compel them to do so? Now, obviously, you know, an Article III judge can step in and issue some sort of order, an injunction, and hopefully there is compliance with that. But yeah, this is a persistent problem by this administration.

4:41I mean, there are these laws in the books, and they don't necessarily think that it applies to them. And in this particular case, with the reflecting pool, the president is trying to get this done before the 250th anniversary of our nation, in just a couple months. So we're really short on time. And that's why he's paying this company a significant sum of money to get it done so quickly. So the government awarded the firm a no-bid contract last month. And it's a firm that had worked on swimming pools at his golf club in Virginia. So they're bypassing the requirement to seek competing offers. It is.

5:19And the administration is saying that there's a timing issue. And that's why they're They have to get this done, and that's why they're paying so much. You know, from the Trump administration's perspective, the way they're phrasing this for the litigation is that this is just a necessary repair. This isn't an alteration because the executive, in their mandate to maintain these properties, obviously they can repair monuments, right? And there's certain areas of the law where the executive has much more discretion. Obviously, national security issues. I'm sure we're going to talk about that when we get to the ballroom.

5:53The other is routine maintenance and repair. So you see the plaintiffs in these cases arguing that any of these, it could be the reflecting pool, it could be the Kennedy Center, the White House, that these are fundamental changes and alterations that would require approval of Congress or others potentially, not just routine repairs. And of course, the government is arguing in their papers that this is just a repair in the case of the reflecting pool, that there are cracks, there's algae, and that this isn't a fundamentally different paint job changing the monument. It's simply just a repair in preparation for this big celebration.

6:33And what do you think of their argument that the urgency is the country's 250th anniversary and that warrants an exemption from the law's procedural requirements? I don't think it's a particularly good argument because the president himself has come out and said that he wants to paint it American blue. So, you know, it seems like he backtracked a little bit from that statement, but it seems like it's an aesthetic change and a significant one at that. So obviously, time is an issue. And we know that some of these government contracts can take some time. In the case of the Kennedy Center, we're talking about two years.

7:11It has to happen in two months. So that's something that I think should be taken into consideration. But if it's a fundamental change, and this is something that is really within Congress's authority, and they haven't delegated this to the executive, then we also have a separation of powers issue here. Talking about the Kennedy Center, which was created by Congress as a living memorial to President Kennedy after his assassination. So the closure is supposed to be for renovation, but the plaintiffs who are suing are also worried that the renovation will actually end up in a demolition like the East Wing.

7:49Is it the same issues or is it different with the Kennedy Center? It's similar issues. The Kennedy Center is slightly different in terms of how it's structured. It does get its authority from Congress, but it's essentially a nonprofit with a board. And there's some board issues. There's labor issues as well. If you're shutting something down and there's, you know, government employees that are going to be essentially let go. So it's a little bit more complicated than the reflecting pool. But it does raise the same issue. So you see, again, in their filing papers, the Department of Justice, which is representing the government in this case, saying that, look, these are necessary repairs because the Kennedy Center was falling apart.

8:27There's cracks. You know, the ceiling was going to collapse. This is dangerous. And judges are going to be obviously a lot more liberal when it comes to the government making repairs, necessary repairs, if it's a safety issue. And I think a little bit different, the reflecting pool, the extent that the repairs were made, I don't think anyone was arguing that it was for safety. But I think in the Kennedy Center, and again, that case is going to come down to, is this an aesthetic redesign, a fundamental alteration of this historic building? Or is it just necessary repairs because attendees could get hurt?

9:06And obviously, we know if they get hurt, then the government can be sued and the Federal Tort Claims Act. So I think that's the biggest issue in the case. And where the judges in those cases fall, I think, is going to determine who wins. He already renamed the center after himself. And he has this, you know, this board, handpicked board that just rubber stamps whatever he wants to do. But in all these cases, it seems like there's no analysis done whatsoever. There's no consultation with any agency or historic group. It's just Trump saying, let's do it. Well, I mean, no question. If you look at the executive branch just across the board, I mean, Trump wants a loyalist, doesn't matter if it's the DOJ or FDA or the Kennedy Center board.

9:54One of the arguments is, of course, that Trump renaming the Kennedy Center, the Trump Kennedy Center, is a fundamental change. So you see in their papers, the government arguing that, you know, things are going to be the same, right? that the bust of John F. Kennedy will remain. The quotes on the walls will remain. So they're trying to now potentially either backtrack or argue to the court that the changes are for repair purposes only. The design of the center will not change. Obviously, the devil is in the details here, so it's going to be interesting to see. Clearly, if it's a demolition, I think the plaintiffs are going to win.

10:35If it's something less than that, then we're going to see how the judge rules on it. Stay with me, Nima. Coming up next, the Justice Department raises Trump derangement syndrome in one of its filings in the ballroom case. I'm June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg. Support for the show comes from Public. Lately, it feels like there are two types of investing platforms. Some are traditional brokerages that haven't changed much in decades, and others feel less like investing and more like a game. Public is positioned differently. It's an investing platform for people who are serious about building their wealth.

11:11On Public, you can build a portfolio of stocks, options, bonds, crypto without all the bugs or the confetti. Retirement accounts? Yep. High-yield cash? Yes, again. They even have direct indexing. Public has modern design, powerful tools, and customer support that actually helps. Go to public.com slash market and earn an uncapped 1 % bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com slash market. Ad paid for by Public Holdings. Brokered services by Public Investing, member FINRA SIPC. Advisory services by Public Advisors, SEC Registered Advisor. Crypto services by ZeroHash. All investing involves risk of loss.

11:49See complete disclosures at public.com slash disclosures. Being a small business owner isn't just a career, it's a calling. Chase for Business knows how much heart and effort go into building something of your own. That's why they make business growth their priority. The Chase team takes the time to understand your mission, where you are now, and where you want to go. Their broad range of solutions is designed with you in mind so you can bring your ideas to life. From banking to payment acceptance to credit cards, you can conveniently manage all your business finances all in one place with their digital tools.

12:23Looking for tips and advice? Their online resources are always available to give you the solutions you need to help your business thrive. See how your business can get stronger and go farther with Chase for Business. Learn more at chase.com slash business. Chase for Business. Make more of what's yours. The Chase mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. Member FDIC. Copyright 2026. JPMorgan Chase and Company. We buy insurance for peace of mind, but every year millions of claims are denied. Not because people did anything wrong, but because their policies quietly excluded what happened.

13:00Insurers know every detail. Policyholders rarely do. That's why My Policy Advocate exists. For just 27 cents a day, their platform reads your policies and explains where you are vulnerable. They don't sell insurance. They deliver transparency. Before you trust your policy to protect you, let My Policy Advocate tell you what it really says. Go to MyPolicyAdvocate.com. We're building one of the great, I think, maybe the greatest ballroom. We needed it for 150 years. They've been asking you to see the trucks and cranes and excavators in the background. And you hear them. And every time I hear them, I love the sound.

13:39Trump may have loved the sound of the East Wing being excavated for his ballroom, but he's in the minority, according to a Washington Post poll. It found that 56 percent of Americans opposed the ballroom and only 28 percent support it. When Trump first announced his plans to build a ballroom at the White House at the end of July, he said construction would not impact the existing structure. It won't interfere with the current building. It won't be. It'll be near it, but not touching it and pays total respect to the existing building, which I'm the biggest fan of. He might have been a fan, but three months later, he demolished the entire East Wing of the White House, which was built more than a century ago.

14:25Trump originally said the ballroom would cost$200 to$400 million and be paid for by private donations. Now the cost has ballooned to$1 billion to be paid for by taxpayers. And the administration is now trying to use the shooting incident outside of the White House Correspondents' Dinner as demonstrating that a new White House ballroom is essential for national security. Saturday night, it was good for one thing. People are loving my ballroom now. That's the only thing. They love my ballroom. The administration is currently appealing a ruling by D.C. Judge Richard Leon, who found that Trump didn't have authority to tear down the East Wing and build a new structure on White House grounds.

15:15I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Neema Rahmani. Lawsuits were eventually filed to stop the construction. Tell us some of the issues here. So the ballroom raises a few issues. The first is the appropriation, right? Congress hasn't appropriated funds for the ballroom. So you see the executive branch trying to move funds related to the Secret Service, for instance, saying that this is a security issue. Obviously, the Cole Allen case and the White House Correspondence Center is now being used for that purpose. But, you know, again, is this a repair? The executive branch can do it. Is this a security issue for the president?

15:58Again, that is something that is within the authority of the executive branch. Is this building a ballroom in a way that has not been authorized by Congress with funds that have not been appropriated by Congress? Then in that case, the executive branch loses. So what you're seeing now is the government and the DOJ trying to couch this argument that this is a security project. This is not something that is for other purposes. And you even see senators sort of catching on, right, in terms of, you know, Korn and others that want this project to move forward. They are now trying to, again, fit the facts of the case in the ballroom construction, demolition of the East Wing into this sort of national security, protecting the president type box.

16:50So it's going to be interesting to see how that particular judge rules on it. When they're using the Correspondents Dinner and what happened there, that's not the kind of event that would be held at the White House. That's a private event. So I don't even see the correlation. You can talk to points immediately after the shooting that this is why we need the presidential ballroom. But you're absolutely right. The White House Correspondents Dinner is a private event. It's held at the Washington Hilton, one of the few venues in Washington, D.C. that can accommodate a crowd of 2 ,000 or more people.

17:22I mean, obviously, it's famously where Ronald Reagan was also shot. The ballroom is for a different purpose altogether. It's to host heads of state. It's not like the White House correspondents can call and rent it or any other private organization or group. So it wouldn't necessarily solve the problem. But of course, you know, politically, it makes for a great talking point. So you see it parroted by a lot of talking heads. Let's discuss this motion by the government asking federal judge Leon to dissolve his own ruling against the ballroom project in light of the attempted attack at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

18:06This was a very unusual filing in so many respects, including that it talked about Trump derangement syndrome. You can see people at the DOJ, they are jockeying for a position to appease their boss, the President of the United States. The way Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has handled the Comey case, for instance, right? 86-47. I don't think that's a meritorious case at all, and I think most former DOJ lawyers would agree. But I think that's probably something that was done because Donald Trump dislikes Comey. And I understand why he dislikes Comey, and I understand why Democrats dislike Comey.

18:45A lot of people dislike Comey. But if you want to prosecute him, prosecute him for what he actually did, which is leak information, allegedly, to the Wall Street Journal and compromise their national security and involve themselves in elections. You know, you're prosecuting for Instagram posts. But I digress. Now you have another DOJ official, high level, who's filing a motion which reads like it was written by Donald Trump on Truth Social. It was bizarre. Something I'd never seen. It's talk about Trump derangement syndrome, writing in caps. I mean, it was really surreal. And when I talk about legal cases, you know, I do a lot of TV, I always say this is unprecedented.

19:24But this one was, even for me, I mean, I was just blown away. But it was clearly something that was an attempt, in my opinion, to pander to the president, as opposed to arguing the facts and the law. And it was signed by three political appointees. No career attorneys signed that. I guess they didn't want their name on that. So tell us about Judge Leon's ruling and the appeal. So the judge issued an order putting the demolition, the construction on hold, but that order was stayed, which means put on hold in a legal sense, while it went up on appeal. So it allowed the construction to move forward while the D.C.

20:07Circuit Court of Appeals hears this issue. So once that appeal is filed, then there's nothing really the district court can do. And what the DOJ did after Cole Allen is, under a very specific procedural rule, ask the judge to rule essentially when the case comes back from appeal and find that this is now a national security issue and therefore the construction should move forward on that basis. I mean, Judge Leon found that Trump didn't have the authority to tear down the East Wing and build this new structure. Why wouldn't the appeals court leave that in place so that the status quo can remain while it's being appealed?

20:51Now the construction's going ahead. I agree. And the problem is this. It's one thing to stop construction or stop painting or renovations. Once it's done, I don't think a court is going to tell the government to tear it down. That's a very different kind of order. So I agree. While this is all sorted out, I mean, it's a big issue. It's being litigated in multiple places, may end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. I think the prudent course of action, setting aside the centennial celebration and all that, is to just issue the injunctions, keep things as is, because, again, I don't see it being tore down.

21:35And that's part of the strategy, I'm sure. What's going to happen with the reflecting pool? You know, a judge is going to say, well, you've got to paint it back. Or, you know, the Kennedy Center, once those renovations are being done, you can't restore it. it doesn't make any sense legally or practically. So I think this is part and parcel of the government's strategy. Let's move forward. Sort of ask for forgiveness rather than asking for permission type argument. Well, he paved over the Rose Garden before anyone could even turn around. It was paved over. So now the other part of this is that Trump originally said it would be 200 to $400 million paid for by private donations.

22:16Now it's a billion dollars paid for by taxpayers. And this is really, according to a Washington Post poll, and this is after the shooting, it's really unpopular with Americans opposed by 56 percent, supported by only 28 percent. So now the question is politics, whether the House and the Senate are going to give him what he wants. You know, I think they will, you know, with the exception of Epstein. And I think that's a very sort of narrow and unique exception. I think members of Congress have really sort of been lockstep with the president. I don't know if they necessarily agree with everything, but he has an ironclad really fist in control over the Republican Party.

23:00And many of the individuals, except for like, you know, Massey or someone like that, that have really stepped up against the president. They've been primary or, you know, because of his tremendous influence on social media, they've really been forced to sort of step down and retire and move away from politics. I mean, he's a very powerful individual. When he focuses his attention on someone that he deems disloyal, they're going to be out of the job if they're in the executive branch, with the exception of maybe like a Jerome Powell or some individuals who have managed to keep their jobs. And if they're in Congress, they're going to face a primary challenger with the president's support.

23:43And there's a decent chance that that primary challenger will be successful. The Trump administration raises national security for just about every issue, even the tariffs, national security. Explain why that's the argument they always go for. National security is the best argument because the courts, especially the Supreme Court, has given the president very wide deference when it comes to matters of national security. So, for instance, the Muslim ban, you know, that's a perfect example of something that was upheld on national security grounds. Courts are not inclined to second guess the executive.

24:24They don't have all the information, right, that law enforcement has, that State Department, CIA. So when it comes to matters of national security, if it's truly a bona fide national security issue, courts are very hesitant to get involved. I mean, how could they? How could a judge, for instance, even though it's also widely unpopular, tell the president, you know, to pull out of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz? It's just it's just not something that courts do. So as soon as it falls into that bucket, it's essentially a win for the executive branch and the president can do what he wants. The appellate court is going to hear arguments in the ballroom case in June.

25:02But I'm not sure what the remedy can be since the East Wing has been demolished already. Thanks so much for joining me, Nima. That's former federal prosecutor Nima Rahmani. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m. Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.

25:40We buy insurance for peace of mind, but every year millions of claims are denied. Not because people did anything wrong, but because their policies quietly excluded what happened. Insurers know every detail. Policyholders rarely do. That's why My Policy Advocate exists. For just 27 cents a day, their platform reads your policies and explains where you are vulnerable. They don't sell insurance, they deliver transparency. Before you trust your policy to protect you, let My Policy Advocate tell you what it really says. Go to MyPolicyAdvocate.com. Find home wherever you roam at Sinesta ES and Simply Suites, where longer stays feel comfortable, flexible, and easy.

26:18Stretch out and enjoy spacious accommodations and home-like amenities designed to help you settle in and stay productive or relaxed for however long you need. And when you're a Sonesta Travel Pass member, staying at Sonesta ES and Simply Suites means earning points toward free nights, upgrades, and more with every eligible stay. Go to Sonesta.com to book your stay and unlock the best rates with Sonesta Travel Pass. Here today, roam tomorrow. Join now at Sonesta.com. Terms and conditions apply. Coffee genius here. Most people see a busy cafe, but I see precision at every step. Thanks to genius from Global Payments.

26:56transactions instant inventory precise operations in sync absolutely genius from sold-out crowds worldwide to managing the morning rush genius keeps operations running smoothly one portado flawless pour perfectly timed just beautiful big league reliability for any business that's genius