Key Takeaways
- Kamala Harris unleashed expletive-filled criticism of Trump’s $300 million White House ballroom plan
- The outburst came during government shutdown threatening SNAP food benefits for millions
- Trump administration claims project is privately funded, with $22 million from YouTube settlement
- New 90,000-square-foot ballroom planned to replace East Wing section
Former Vice President Kamala Harris erupted in anger during an interview with Jon Stewart, condemning President Trump’s proposed $300 million White House ballroom as millions face potential food aid cuts during a government shutdown.
In an expletive-laden outburst on “The Weekly Show” podcast, Harris questioned the timing and priorities of the administration. “Are you f–king kidding me?” she raged. “This guy wants to create a ballroom for his rich friends while completely turning a blind eye to the fact that babies are going to starve when the Snap benefits end in just hours from now.”
Harris accused Trump of prioritizing luxury over Americans struggling with the shutdown’s consequences. “I’m not going to be distracted by, ‘Oh, does the guy have a big f**king hammer?’ What about those babies?” she demanded.
Ballroom Project Details
The controversy stems from plans to demolish part of the White House East Wing for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom. The Trump administration describes it as necessary for hosting large diplomatic events and celebrating American culture.
According to the White House, the current East Room accommodates only about 200 guests, which Trump has long criticized as inadequate for state functions.
Funding and Timeline
The administration maintains the $300 million project will be entirely privately funded without taxpayer money. Officials have pledged to disclose donor names but haven’t released a complete list yet.
Approximately $22 million reportedly comes from YouTube as part of a 2021 lawsuit settlement with Trump. The ballroom is expected to be completed before the end of Trump’s term in January 2029.
Harris later clarified her position, stating: “It’s important we not conflate disruption with destruction. There’s a difference between shaking up the system and burning it down while families go hungry.”
