U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) accused President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans of prioritizing personal monuments over everyday Americans on Saturday, tying a growing list of high-cost White House construction projects to the president’s decision to unilaterally cancel nearly $1 billion in federal funding for health care, small businesses and other programs. Padilla’s post, published on X, came one day after Politico reported that Trump had informed congressional leaders he was canceling the funding through a legally contested budget maneuver known as a “pocket rescission.”
Padilla’s post read in full:
“Here’s where our money goes when Republicans are in charge:
-Trump’s ballroom: $1 BILLION
-His “triumphal” arch: $100 MILLION
-A Reflecting Pool debacle: $16 MILLIONHealth care? Cut.
Small business assistance? Gone.
Groceries, gas, utilities? Still costing us more.Their priorities couldn’t be clearer.”
The post was published at 8:41 a.m. ET on September 26, 2026.
The Funding Cancellation That Prompted the Post
Padilla’s statement was a direct response to reporting that Trump had told congressional leaders on Friday, September 25, that he had canceled close to $1 billion in already-appropriated federal funding without lawmakers’ consent. The canceled money covers immigration services, foreign aid, education programs, health research and assistance for minority-owned businesses. The administration executed the cancellation through a “pocket rescission” — a maneuver in which the president formally requests that Congress rescind funding so close to the end of the fiscal year that the money expires on September 30 regardless of whether lawmakers act on the request within the 45 days normally allotted for review.
The tactic has drawn scrutiny well beyond Padilla’s office. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has said that when not enough time is given for Congress to consider a rescission request or for the funds to be used before they expire, the president is effectively bypassing congressional authority over government funding. The GAO has separately compared pocket rescissions to a legislative line-item veto — a power the Supreme Court struck down decades ago.
Bipartisan Pushback in the Senate
The reaction was not confined to Democrats. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said the Office of Management and Budget does not get to decide unilaterally what programs are worth funding, and called the rescission attempt an unlawful violation of the Impoundment Control Act. Collins added that she intends to work with colleagues to respond to what she described as illegal action by the administration.
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) was more blunt, describing the cancellation as theft from the American people. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) argued the move undermines the constitutional separation of powers, while Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) faulted Senate Republicans for failing to stop the administration from repeating the tactic.
The White House budget office, led by Russell Vought, has defended the cancellation, arguing on social media that it will use every fiscal tool available to cut what it calls wasteful spending. The rescission package targets agencies including Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Education, Housing and Urban Development and Justice, and marks the second time in roughly a year that the administration has used a pocket rescission, following a similar move blocking foreign aid funding in 2025.
The Ballroom: From $200 Million to $1 Billion
Padilla’s post placed particular emphasis on the East Wing ballroom Trump has been building at the White House since demolishing the historic wing last year. When the project was first unveiled in July 2025, the White House said the 90,000-square-foot facility would cost $200 million, to be donated entirely by Trump and private donors. The estimate rose repeatedly in the months that followed — to $300 million, then $350 million, then $400 million — with Trump insisting each time that no taxpayer money would be involved.
That claim came under direct challenge in the spring, when a Washington Post report citing internal government documents put the ballroom’s total projected cost at $600 million, with taxpayers covering more than half. Around the same time, Senate Republicans introduced a $1 billion proposal to fund security upgrades tied to the East Wing project, which the administration says covers a bunker, a rooftop drone-detection center and other security infrastructure rather than the ballroom itself.
By September, Forbes reported that the combined cost of the ballroom, the underground security complex, a new White House helipad, a visitor screening center and related renovations had reached at least $927 million, according to contracting documents. That figure — along with the separately proposed $1 billion security appropriation Republicans floated for the East Wing — is the basis for Padilla’s reference to a “$1 billion” ballroom.
The “Triumphal Arch”
Padilla’s post also cited a proposed 250-foot triumphal arch that Trump has pushed to build near Memorial Circle, on the Arlington, Virginia side of the Potomac River, timed to the country’s 250th anniversary. Current reporting puts the likely price at around $100 million or more, though the administration says the estimate is still being calculated. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in early September that excavation work was expected to begin within two weeks, even as litigation over the project remains unresolved.
As with the ballroom, Trump initially suggested private donors would cover the arch. But the National Endowment for the Humanities’ latest spending plan shows taxpayers are set to contribute $2 million in special funds and up to $13 million in matching grants toward the project. Trump has more recently proposed converting the structure into what he has called a “Military Complex,” incorporating drones and snipers for what he described as national security purposes.
The Reflecting Pool “Debacle”
The third project named in Padilla’s post — the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovation — has drawn its own bipartisan criticism after a repainting project meant to take a week or two ballooned in both cost and duration. Trump’s initial projected cost in April was between $1.5 million and $2 million; by June, the range had grown to between $10 million and $16 million. The pool’s new “American flag blue” sealant subsequently began peeling within weeks of completion, and an algae bloom turned parts of the water green.
The total cost of the renovation, including a no-bid contract awarded to Virginia-based Atlantic Industrial Coatings and a separate contract for water-purification equipment, surpassed $16 million by June — the exact figure cited in Padilla’s post. Senator John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) publicly demanded that Trump personally reimburse taxpayers for the project, calling it a national embarrassment, and a group of Senate Democrats led by Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) formally asked Interior Secretary Burgum to account for why the project failed and exceeded its original budget.
Padilla’s Broader Record on Cost of Living
Saturday’s post fits a pattern for Padilla, a member of the Senate Budget Committee who has repeatedly linked Trump’s spending priorities to the cost of living facing American families. After Trump released his Fiscal Year 2027 budget request earlier this year, Padilla said Trump was asking families to foot the bill for his disastrous agenda after having already raised the cost of housing, groceries and health care.
Padilla later pressed OMB Director Russell Vought directly on the same budget during a Senate Budget Committee hearing, telling Vought the proposal amounted to a complete abandonment of a promise the administration had made to bring down costs, while pointing to a proposed 42 percent increase in defense spending and the administration’s refusal to disclose the cost of U.S. military operations against Iran.
Padilla has also pushed legislation on the Senate floor to limit the use of tariffs to offset Republican tax cuts, arguing at the time that Trump’s policies were raising the cost of living for hundreds of millions of Americans despite his 2024 campaign promise to lower prices immediately upon taking office.
What Comes Next
The dispute over the pocket rescission is expected to feed directly into a larger fight over government funding. Congress faces a September 30 deadline to fund the government, and the House is out of session through the November election, leaving lawmakers with little practical ability to respond to the rescission before the money expires. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said Democrats intend to challenge the cancellation.
Whether the arch, the ballroom’s security funding or further rescissions become part of that fight remains unresolved. For now, Padilla’s Saturday post stands as the latest instance of Democrats pairing the administration’s discretionary spending on presidential projects with cuts to programs they say directly affect household budgets — a contrast the senator’s post was explicitly designed to draw as Congress heads toward another funding standoff.