Honest, paywall-free news is rare. Please support our boldly independent journalism with a donation of any size.
New polling indicates that most Americans are opposed to President Donald Trump’s vanity projects, including his plans to reshape the look of Washington, D.C. and to put his name on U.S. currency.
Within a Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll that was published on Thursday, respondents were asked their opinions on Trump tearing down portions of the East Wing of the White House, to be replaced with an extravagant, reportedly $400 million ballroom. Even with the caveat that the project would be financed by private donors, only 28 percent of respondents said they supported the project, while 56 percent were opposed.
Support for Trump’s vision for a 250-foot-tall triumphal arch near the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery was equally low. Only 21 percent of Americans said the project should move forward, while 52 percent were opposed.
And asked whether they approved of Trump’s signature replacing the Treasury Secretary’s name on U.S. dollar bills, only 12 percent of Americans said they liked the idea, while 68 percent were opposed, the poll found.
Trump is pushing for other projects featuring his likeness to move forward, too, including a redesign of art inside U.S. passports to include his portrait. The poll did not inquire about that proposal, as the administration released the idea to the public as the survey was being conducted. But given the low approval ratings of Trump’s other projects — and his current job approval numbers sinking to record lows — it’s highly unlikely that changes to the passport design would receive wide approval from the public.
Indeed, other surveys indicate a distaste for the proposed passport redesign. A recent YouGov poll asking Americans their opinions on passports including Trump’s likeness found that only 18 percent would prefer passports with that imagery, while 67 percent would pick a passport without Trump’s face, if given the option.
Many of Trump’s proposed changes have generated widespread controversy. The triumphal arch, for example, received just under 1,000 responses during a public comment period, 100 percent of which were deemed to be opposed to the project. Despite those comments — and a veterans group voicing its intent to sue over its construction — the Commission of Fine Arts (whose members were all selected by Trump) voted to advance the planned building of the monument.
The ballroom project is supposed to be financed by private donors, Trump said, a move that raises concerns about conflicts of interest, as many of the companies and billionaires that have pledged to contribute are poised to benefit from policies the administration may enact relating to their business ventures. Donors for the ballroom also include companies that have profited from Trump’s draconian anti-immigration policies, as well as Israel’s occupation of Palestine and its genocide in Gaza.
In recent days, some Republican senators have pushed for the U.S. government to fund the entirety of the ballroom project, citing the shooting at the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) dinner last weekend.
“If you don’t think $400 million of taxpayer money is a good investment to create a secure facility at the White House, then I disagree,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina). “I bet you 90 percent of Americans would love to have a better facility.”
Important Message: Please Read
For 25 years, Truthout has survived by publishing impactful investigative journalism and analysis; distributing full editions 365 days a year; and building a community of readers who support us with small, hard-earned donations.
Eighty percent of our $3 million yearly budget comes from small donors alone. Of those, 8,000 readers support us with monthly donations. Back in 2018, when Facebook decided to suppress the circulation of posts made by organizations, thereby cutting readers off from seeing many articles shared by the news organizations they had intentionally decided to follow, Truthout’s total traffic declined by 40 percent, as nearly all of our traffic from that platform disappeared.
As Google plans to roll out its new AI search bar, providing shoddy AI summaries instead of directing readers to our site, the consequences promise to be even more explosive. Google Search is our single largest source of traffic; it’s the route by which 27 percent of our readers find us. If even half of that 27 percent disappears, it will have a devastating impact on our journalism.
The entire journalism ecosystem will shoulder this blow, particularly independent publishers and news sites that depend on traffic and aren’t bankrolled by large corporations. If you can support Truthout with a donation today, you can help us resist the inevitability of Big Tech’s AI takeover. Please give today.