Commission tees up 1st hearing on Trump’s ballroom construction

The coverage treats a White House ballroom like a looming ethics scandal, as if the mere fact that President Trump is “closely managing” it is inherently suspect. That framing skips a basic question: what, exactly, is the public harm in improving a heavily used state venue through an open process?

A hearing is fine. Oversight is part of public trust. But the reflex to cast any change as corruption often ignores how Washington has tolerated far larger waste under the banner of “experts.” If the project meets standards, budgets, and security needs, then the story is competence, not controversy.

Conservatives care about rule of law, transparent procurement, and institutional stability. The commission should focus on costs, design integrity, and national security implications, not on insinuations. The principle at stake is straightforward: scrutiny should be rigorous, and it should be fair.