Why Fighting Trump’s Vanity Projects Matters

He’s using whatever he can to expand presidential power.

Given the chaos and destruction the Trump administration has caused over the past year and a half, it’s fair to ask why we should care about the president’s “vanity projects.” Why bother challenging Donald Trump’s attempts to renovate a golf course, rename the Kennedy Center, or build a White House ballroom when people are losing their rights, their jobs, and access to essential programs? The answer is that the legal challenges are not only about the projects themselves. They also are about the scope of presidential power, and the precedents established in these seemingly narrow disputes have consequences far beyond the projects at issue. A victory for the president in one of these cases would strengthen his hand the next time he or his administration tests the bounds of executive power, where the stakes for our democracy could be far greater.

Donald Trump talks about an arch named for him that he wants constructed near Arlington National Cemetery. (White House photo)

One of Democracy Defenders Fund’s core missions is protecting the rule of law, which means we go to court when government officials abuse their authority or violate the Constitution. Trump’s vanity projects are flagrant abuses of power. Through these projects, he and his administration repeatedly try to extend executive authority beyond the areas that Congress or the courts traditionally allowed. Each ruling further defines the scope of executive power going forward. Therefore, we must challenge every instance of executive overreach, even his seemingly silly projects, especially as we approach midterm elections.

The White House ballroom litigation addresses whether the president can undertake major construction on federal property without congressional authorization or review by the independent federal agencies Congress has tasked with overseeing such projects. The D.C. Circuit recently held that the administration could not proceed with construction of the ballroom without congressional authorization but allowed any construction necessary to ensure public safety and presidential security, i.e., the underground military complex that sits below the ballroom. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene, calling the D.C. Circuit’s decision “extraordinary and unlawful” and claiming any pause in construction will endanger the president’s security and override advice from senior officials. How the court responds to this argument will determine whether the president can invoke national security to evade legal constraints on executive action. The ruling could have significant consequences if, for instance, the president invokes national security concerns as a basis for interfering in elections. The president has already invoked national security to justify expanding federal and presidential authority over elections, including proposals to seize voting equipment (after the 2020 election), federal efforts to investigate state election systems (2026, when he gave a prime-time address claiming to have declassified intelligence that showed vulnerabilities in American elections and foreign interference, and when he used the national security narrative to justify his demand for sweeping election-law changes like the SAVE Act), and executive orders attempting to dictate state election practices (Executive Order 14248, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” claiming foreign interference in our elections justified substantial federal authority over elections administration).

The Kennedy Center litigation asks whether a board made up of members hand-picked by the president can change an institution’s congressionally prescribed identity, purpose, and governance. Last year, Trump ousted most members of the sitting Kennedy Center Board, replaced them with a loyalist majority, and named himself chair. The new board then voted to take voting rights away from ex officio members who might challenge the president’s plan to rename the center and close it for a two-year Trumpian renovation. The district court held that the newly reconstituted board lacked statutory authority to rename the center or change the governance of the board and abused its discretion by voting to close the center for two years. The court’s ruling made clear that control over the center’s personnel did not give the president or his allies unlimited authority over the institution itself. Thus, when Congress has assigned a function to an institution, the president cannot take over that function simply by controlling the people who administer it. Despite this clear mandate, the board voted last week to put Trump’s name back on the building and close it for two years. How this case plays out may determine whether the president can circumvent Congress by controlling an entity’s leadership.

The stakes in these cases extend far beyond a ballroom or a cultural institution. They may help define whether a president can use control over federal entities, national-security justifications, or other asserted executive powers to circumvent limits Congress has imposed. In that sense, these cases are not really about Trump’s vanity projects. They are about whether the presidency is bound by the laws Congress enacted—or whether a president can find an end run around them. This is why it is important to challenge executive overreach wherever it occurs, even when it takes the form of seemingly trivial vanity projects amid far greater threats to our democracy.

Lindsay Zimliki is a senior litigation counsel at Democracy Defenders Fund. She served in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation.

---