quarta-feira, 1 de abril de 2026
In multiple interviews on April 1, 2026, President Donald Trump stated he is "absolutely" considering withdrawing the United States from NATO. He described the 32-member alliance as a "paper tiger" and indicated that a potential U.S. exit is now "beyond reconsideration".
.jpeg)
Trump
says he is ‘absolutely’ considering withdrawing US from Nato
In
multiple interviews on April 1, 2026, President Donald Trump stated he is
"absolutely" considering withdrawing the United States from NATO. He
described the 32-member alliance as a "paper tiger" and indicated
that a potential U.S. exit is now "beyond reconsideration".
Key
Reasons for Trump's Stance
The
President's remarks follow a significant rift with European allies over the
ongoing U.S.-Israel war in Iran, which began on February 28, 2024:
Lack of
Support in Iran: Trump expressed "disgust" that NATO members refused
to join military operations or send warships to reopen the Strait of Hormuz,
which Iran has blocked in retaliation for the conflict.
Basing
and Overflight Refusals: Several allies, including Spain, Italy, and France,
denied the U.S. use of their military bases or airspace for strikes against
Iran.
"One-Way
Street": Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized the
alliance as a "one-way street" where the U.S. defends Europe but
receives no assistance when needed for its own objectives.
Legal and
Practical Hurdles
While
Trump has escalated his rhetoric, a unilateral withdrawal faces substantial
obstacles:
2023
Congressional Law: A measure co-sponsored by Marco Rubio in 2023 requires a
two-thirds Senate super-majority or an Act of Congress to authorize a U.S.
withdrawal from NATO.
Executive
Workarounds: Legal experts suggest Trump could attempt to circumvent Congress
by citing his Commander-in-Chief authority over foreign policy or by
withdrawing troops and personnel from the alliance's command structure without
formally exiting the treaty.
Constitutional
Conflict: Any attempt to bypass the 2023 law would likely trigger a major legal
battle between the executive branch and Congress.
United
Kingdom: Prime Minister Keir Starmer reaffirmed that the U.K. is "fully
committed" to NATO but insisted he would not let the country be
"dragged into" the Iran war.
Europe:
Leaders in Germany and Poland have called for calm while reaffirming their
commitment to the alliance, though some expressed "disturbing"
concern that U.S. deterrence is already being weakened.
Trump is
scheduled to address the nation in a primetime speech at 9 p.m. ET on
Wednesday, April 1, to provide further updates on the war and the future of the
alliance.
Trump says he is ‘absolutely’ considering withdrawing US from Nato
.jpeg)
Trump
says he is ‘absolutely’ considering withdrawing US from Nato
The
president, a longtime critic of Nato, has stepped up criticism after allies
refused to join the US-Israel war on Iran
Julian
Borger Senior international correspondent
Wed 1 Apr
2026 17.04 BST
Donald
Trump has said he is “absolutely” considering withdrawing the US from Nato,
warning that the matter was “beyond reconsideration” after the refusal of US
allies to join the US-Israeli war against Iran.
The
president’s threats, his most determined to date, have left the alliance facing
its worst crisis in its 77-year history, a former US ambassador has warned.
Trump has
long been vocally sceptical about the benefit of Nato membership to the US, but
since North Atlantic allies have refused to take part in the month-long,
faltering US-Israeli assault on Iran, the president has stepped up his
rhetoric.
He told
Reuters news agency on Wednesday he was “absolutely without question”
considering withdrawal, after telling the Telegraph the matter was “beyond
reconsideration”, insisting he had never been “swayed by Nato”. He signalled
that he would express his disgust for Nato in an address to the nation
scheduled for Wednesday evening.
It could
be politically and constitutionally difficult for Trump to bring about formal
withdrawal from the 1949 Washington treaty, Nato’s founding document, but Ivo
Daalder, US permanent representative at Nato headquarters from 2009 to 2013,
argued the serious damage to the alliance had already been done.
“This is
by far the worst crisis Nato has ever confronted. Military alliances are, at
their core, based on trust: the confidence that if I am attacked, you will come
help defend,” Daalder wrote in an online commentary. “It’s hard to see how any
European country will now be able and willing to trust the United States to
come to its defence.”
Trump
launched the war on Iran on 28 February in partnership with the Israeli prime
minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, but without consulting Nato allies. He did not
invoke article 5 of the treaty, which triggers collective defence from other
members in the event of an “an armed attack against one or more of them in
Europe or North America”. Such an attack had not taken place.
More than
a month into the war, there is no sign of the regime change or collapse that
Trump and Netanyahu had hoped for, and Tehran’s response – closing the
economically vital strait of Hormuz – has caused an oil price surge and a
worldwide shortage of fertiliser and other essential goods, threatening a
global recession.
Trump has
swung between claiming a negotiated end to the war is imminent and threatening
a ground assault, while calling on US allies to join the fight and force the
strait back open. None of Washington’s traditional partners have come forward.
Some European allies have declared the US-Israeli attack to be illegal and
several have withheld the overflight rights and use of bases on their
territory.
Trump has
consequently lashed out at European capitals, denouncing them as “cowards”, and
expressing particular contempt for the UK. “You don’t even have a navy,” Trump
told the Telegraph. “You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t
work.”
The
anti-Nato rhetoric has been echoed by the US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth,
and by the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who was a staunch supporter of the
alliance when he was a senator.
Rubio
told Fox News: “We are going to have to re-examine whether or not this
alliance, that has served this country well for a while, is still serving that
purpose or has now become a one-way street, where America is simply in a
position to help Europe but when we need the help of our allies, they deny us
basing rights and overflight.”
The UK’s
prime minister, Keir Starmer, has shrugged off the administration’s jibes as
“noise”, insisting that “Nato is the single most effective military alliance
the world has ever seen”. He restated his position on the Iran conflict that
“this is not our war, and we’re not going to get dragged into it”.
In
response to previous Trump criticism, the UK and other European allies have
raised their defence spending and tried hard, with diminishing success, to
persuade him to maintain US support for Ukraine’s defence against Russia.
Nato’s secretary general, Mark Rutte, has gone out of his way to flatter Trump,
to the extent of expressing support for the Iran war, despite the opposition of
almost all the alliance’s other 31 members.
“Backing
one ally when 31 oppose isn’t the best way to maintain unity,” Daalder said.
“We also now know that Trump does his own thing and doesn’t listen to anyone,
including Trump whisperers.”
In an
effort to “Trump-proof” the alliance, Congress passed the National Defence
Authorization Act (NDAA) in 2024, prohibiting a US president from unilaterally
withdrawing the US from Nato without two-thirds Senate approval or an act of
Congress – a provision co-sponsored by Rubio. The NDAA also prohibits using any
federal funds to facilitate a withdrawal.
“Congress
will not sit by while this president tries to unravel an alliance that has kept
Americans safe for decades,” the Democratic senator Mark Warner said on
Wednesday. “Our commitment to Nato is ironclad, and we will use every tool
available to defend it.”
Any
attempt to leave Nato formally would be likely to trigger a constitutional
crisis that would almost certainly go to the US supreme court. However, the
court has a record of siding with the executive in disputes over foreign policy
issues.
“Other
presidents have withdrawn from treaties,” Daalder pointed out. “In any case,
whatever the legal status, Trump can undermine Nato by withdrawing troops,
pulling US personnel from the Nato command structure and doing little if
anything in case of an attack – all perfectly legal.”
Ruth
Deyermond, a senior lecturer at the department of war studies in King’s College
London, said the crisis facing the alliance would not simply recede at the end
of Trump’s White House tenure. “This is wishful thinking,” Deyermond said on
Bluesky. “The failure to understand the importance of the alliance for US
security and the taking of allies for granted isn’t unique to the Trump
administration.”
“This is
why the old Nato is gone and Europeans (plus Canada), need to develop a new
security framework to replace it,” she said. “It’s frightening, difficult, and
expensive, but that doesn’t make it less necessary or urgent.”
Starmer
signalled on Wednesday that he would use an upcoming summit with EU countries
to solidify economic and security ties, calling for: “A partnership for the
dangerous world that we must navigate together.”
Immigration cannot fully fix aging populations because immigrants also age, and to significantly alter dependency ratios, unprecedented and unsustainable, continuously high levels of migration would be required.
.jpeg)
Immigration
cannot fully fix aging populations because immigrants also age, and to
significantly alter dependency ratios, unprecedented and unsustainable,
continuously high levels of migration would be required. While younger
immigrants can boost the labor force, their impact on reducing the overall age
structure is small, as they often face lower early incomes and eventually join
the retirement demographic.
Immigrants
Age Too: Immigrants are not perpetually young. Over time, they move from the
workforce into retirement, adding to the same old-age dependency ratio that
they were meant to improve.
Limited
Demographic Impact: Even in scenarios with high immigration, studies show only
a small percentage (e.g., only about 12% in the U.S.) of aging is offset by
2060, making it a marginal factor rather than a complete solution.
High
Inflow Needed: To counteract the trend of low fertility rates and growing
retiree populations, immigration would need to be sustained at unsustainable
levels, creating immense pressure on housing, infrastructure, and social
integration.
Fertility
Rate Convergence: While immigrants often have higher fertility rates upon
arrival, these rates generally decline over time, converging with the lower
fertility rates of the native-born population.
Economic
Factors: New legal immigrants often have lower incomes initially, which reduces
their immediate impact on funding Social Security and public services through
taxes, often increasing the usage of tax-funded benefits.
Not a
Permanent Solution: Immigration acts as a temporary stabilizer for population
decline, but it does not fix the root demographic issue of low fertility rates.
As of April 1, 2026, President Trump has threatened to withdraw the U.S. from NATO due to allies' refusal to support the U.S.-led war in Iran.
.jpeg)
As of
April 1, 2026, President Trump has threatened to withdraw the U.S. from NATO
due to allies' refusal to support the U.S.-led war in Iran. He stated the
conflict would conclude in two or three weeks and dismissed the closure of the
Strait of Hormuz by Iran as a problem for other countries to manage.
Key
Details
NATO
Threats: Trump described U.S. membership in NATO as "beyond
reconsideration" after European leaders, including Germany, Britain, and
France, refused to aid in securing the Strait of Hormuz.
Strait of
Hormuz: As Iran blocked the key oil transit route, causing global energy price
spikes, Trump told allies, particularly the UK, to "go to the Strait, and
just TAKE IT".
War
Outlook: Despite the ongoing crisis, Trump predicted a swift end, claiming he
had already addressed Iran's nuclear program.
Allied
Response: Germany and other nations declined to participate, arguing they did
not start the war, while some offered support only after combat ends.
The
conflict, initiated without consultation, has entered its third week and has
resulted in over 2,000 deaths.
President Trump said that he was considering leaving NATO over allies’ failure to support his Iran offensive. He suggested that the U.S. war would end in two or three weeks and that Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz would be a problem for others to solve.
Iran War Live Updates: Trump Berates Allies While
Signaling He Will Wind Down the War
President Trump said that he was considering
leaving NATO over allies’ failure to support his Iran offensive. He suggested
that the U.S. war would end in two or three weeks and that Iran’s
closure of the Strait of Hormuz would be a problem for others to solve.
Abdi
Latif Dahir Megan Specia and Erika Solomon
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/04/01/world/iran-war-trump-oil-news
Here’s
the latest.
President
Trump said that he was considering pulling the United States out of NATO over
the war with Iran, as he heaps pressure on allies to manage the fallout of a
conflict he signaled he would wind down in two or three weeks.
In an
interview with Britain’s Telegraph newspaper published on Wednesday, Mr. Trump
was asked whether he was reconsidering U.S. membership in the military alliance
and was quoted as replying, “Oh yes,” and that it was “beyond reconsideration.”
The remarks were published hours after President Trump said that he expected
the U.S. military campaign in Iran would be over “very soon” and dismissed
Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which has jolted global energy markets,
as a problem for other countries to resolve.
In a
social media post on Tuesday, Mr. Trump had again denigrated U.S. allies,
chiefly Britain, for not heeding his call for help in securing the strait, a
conduit for much of the global oil supply, and said that the United States
would not come to their aid in the future. An Iranian official emphasized on
Wednesday that the United States would not regain access to the waterway,
saying in a social media post: “The Strait of Hormuz will certainly reopen, but
not for you.”
Mr. Trump
was scheduled to deliver “an important update” on the war in a national address
at 9 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, said Karoline Leavitt, the White House press
secretary. On Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Trump told reporters that he had achieved
his primary goal of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, though
there is no evidence that the United States or Israel has destroyed the
country’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade fuel.
Earlier
Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the U.S. had achieved such
control of Iran’s skies that it was flying B-52 bombers directly over Iranian
territory. But Mr. Hegseth acknowledged that Iran retained the ability to
retaliate with missiles and drones targeting U.S. allies in the region. On
Wednesday morning, the authorities in Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar all reported
missile or drone attacks from Iran.
The
Israeli military said on Wednesday that it had completed a wave of strikes
against Iranian government infrastructure in Tehran, the capital, without
specifying the targets. Iranian state television reported that three locations
were hit, including an area northeast of Tehran with military buildings and
housing.
Here’s
what else we’re covering:
American
kidnapped: A journalist, Shelly Kittleson, was kidnapped in Baghdad, the Iraqi
capital, on Tuesday evening, the country’s Interior Ministry said. The ministry
said that security forces had pursued the kidnappers, arrested one suspect and
seized a vehicle used in the abduction. The suspect is a member of the
Iranian-allied paramilitary group Kataib Hezbollah, two senior Iraqi security
officials said.
Houthis:
In Yemen, the Iran-backed Houthi militia said it had launched ballistic
missiles at Israel on Wednesday. Israel said it had detected a missile launch
from Yemen toward its territory. The Houthis entered the war on Saturday by
launching a missile attack on what they said were Israeli military targets.
Lebanon:
Israeli strikes in Beirut killed at least seven people and wounded 24 others
early Wednesday, Lebanon’s national news agency reported. And there were more
Israeli strikes across southern Lebanon, a day after Israel said it planned to
occupy and control a large swath of the region and demolish entire towns.
Death
tolls: The Human Rights Activists News Agency said at least 1,598 civilians had
been killed, including 244 children, in Iran since the war began. Lebanon’s
health ministry said that more than 1,260 Lebanese had been killed as of
Tuesday, with more than 3,750 others wounded, since the latest fighting between
Israel and Hezbollah began. In Iran’s attacks across the Middle East, at least
50 people have been killed in Gulf nations. In Israel, at least 17 had been
killed as of Friday. The American death toll stands at 13 service members, with
hundreds of others wounded.
Architects and design experts warn that the rushed timeline for President Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom addition has resulted in a flawed, "unrefined" project.
.jpeg)
Trump’s
Ballroom Design Has Barely Been Scrutinized Architects Say It Shows
Architects
and design experts warn that the rushed timeline for President Trump’s $400
million White House ballroom addition has resulted in a flawed,
"unrefined" project. Critics argue the design shows a lack of the
rigorous public scrutiny typically required for major modifications to the
nation's most iconic building.
Specific
design flaws and concerns highlighted by experts include:
Non-functional
Elements: The design includes a massive south-facing portico that project
architect Shalom Baranes admitted is "more ornamental than
functional," containing no doors that actually lead into the ballroom. It
also reportedly features "stairs to nowhere".
Visual
Dominance: At roughly 90,000 square feet, the structure is more than three
times the cubic volume of the West Wing. This scale makes it the visually
dominant part of the White House complex when viewed from the south, disrupting
the building's historic neoclassical symmetry.
Blocked
Views and Natural Light: Large columns along the portico are placed in a way
that will block natural light and interior views for guests.
Deceptive
Façade: On the north-facing wall visible to tourists, "fake windows"
(decorative masonry niches) are used to conceal a row of bathroom stalls.
Historical
Disruption: The addition disrupts the historic White House driveway designed by
Frederick Law Olmsted and impedes the original sightline between the White
House and the Capitol planned by Pierre Charles L'Enfant.
Capacity
Issues: Although intended to seat 1,000 guests, industry standards suggest the
space is sized for 1,500, leading critics to warn that smaller events may feel
empty.
Project
Status
The
project followed the demolition of the 123-year-old East Wing in October 2025.
While the White House maintains it is a "beautiful" and necessary
addition funded by private donors, approximately 97% of more than 32,000 public
comments submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission were negative. A
final vote by the commission is scheduled for April 2, 2026.
Trump’s Ballroom Design Has Barely Been Scrutinized Architects Say It Shows
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
Trump’s
Ballroom Design Has Barely Been Scrutinized
Architects
Say It Shows
President
Trump’s ballroom has rushed toward construction, with little time for public
review of this major addition to the White House.
Critics
warn it still has many issues — its portico is too big, its stairs lead
nowhere, its columns will block views from inside the ballroom.
And
that’s just the portico.
These are
the kinds of details that are normally scrutinized in the design of any
building so significant — and in the review that public projects face in the
nation’s capital. But barring a judge’s intervention, the ballroom is set to
move forward this week anyway.
By Emily
Badger, Junho Lee and Larry Buchanan
Junho Lee
is a trained architect, Larry Buchanan studied fine arts, and Emily Badger has
long written about urban planning.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/03/29/upshot/white-house-ballroom.html
March 29,
2026
The
National Capital Planning Commission is scheduled on Thursday to take a final
vote approving President Trump’s ballroom, clearing the last review for a major
addition to the White House that was publicly unveiled in detail only in
January. Last month, another panel led by the president’s allies, the
Commission of Fine Arts, discussed the ballroom for 12 minutes before
unanimously approving it.
The
hurried reviews, with construction cranes already swiveling above the White
House grounds, are an abrupt departure from how new monuments, museums and even
modest renovations have been designed and refined in the capital for decades.
And the ballroom will be worse off for it, architects warn.
Take the
White House fence, a far more modest part of the complex that received more
probing attention from both commissions when it was rebuilt during Mr. Trump’s
first term.
Total
pier width
Fence to
pier connection detail
Post top
design
Pier
joint size
Spacing
between pickets
Pier base
height
The White
House fence was redesigned to be taller and more secure.
The White
House fence was redesigned to be taller and more secure.
Over nine
months of public meetings, the National Capital Planning Commission weighed in
on the size of the fence piers, the decorative tops, the thickness of the
pickets and the spacing between them (a 5½-inch gap was determined to best
secure the White House without making it appear imprisoned).
Or the
renovation to the Federal Reserve Board headquarters, an ongoing project a few
blocks from the White House that has attracted the president’s attention, too.
New
skylights were planned to enclose an atrium in the Eccles Building. But the
planning commission wanted to ensure that change wasn’t visible to pedestrians
taking in the original 1930s-era building from Constitution Avenue.
This
combination of color and luster
Or the
Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, which
opened just south of the White House in 2016 with a signature facade of ornate
panels.
The
Commission of Fine Arts was deeply involved in selecting the bronze-like finish
on the panels (after months of debate and in-person testing, it endorsed the
“five-coat bronze-colored polymeric painted finish identified as Custom Artisan
#3.5”).
The
Commission of Fine Arts was deeply involved in selecting the bronze-like finish
on the panels (after months of debate and in-person testing, it endorsed the
“five-coat bronze-colored polymeric painted finish identified as Custom Artisan
#3.5”).
Such
details affect how people passing by experience these iconic places, and how
each structure fits into a capital city that has been planned around civic
symbols and sightlines since the 1790s. The deliberation is also an expression
of democracy, said Carol Quillen, the president and chief executive of the
National Trust for Historic Preservation, which has sued the administration
over the ballroom.
“Even if
we are slow and we make mistakes and we fight, that process has meaning to us,”
Ms. Quillen said. No project belonging to the public should be the vision of
just one man, she said.
That is,
however, how the ballroom has often been described.
“President
Trump is the best builder and developer in the entire world, and the American
people can rest well knowing that this project is in his hands,” Davis Ingle, a
White House spokesman, said in a statement. Past administrations and presidents
have wanted a ballroom for more than 150 years, he said, and Mr. Trump will
accomplish it.
But in
the sprint to complete it before the end of his term, the addition appears to
have compressed the normal design evolution for any project.
As
recently as October, the president was still increasing the ballroom’s
capacity, the kind of decision needed at the concept stage. And the White House
has said it plans to begin building in the spring, a timeline that would mean
construction documents would have to be prepared even as the design was still
under review. (Before a judge demanded in December that the project seek review
by these two commissions, the administration appeared poised to skip them
entirely.)
“The
timeline never made any sense to me,” said Thomas Gallas, a former member of
the planning commission who long led a design and planning firm. A building on
this scale might take its architects and engineers 18 months to two years from
initial concept to completed construction documents, he said.
Reviews
by the planning commission generally follow similar steps, with major projects
seeking feedback on initial concepts, then approval of preliminary plans, and
then final approval. The public process for the Fed renovations took two years,
the African American history museum even longer:
Timelines
do not include staff consultations, which often begin well in advance of the
first public meeting.
For the
ballroom, the planning commission never had a say on the concept design. And
this week, it will vote on a combined preliminary and final review, a move more
common for antenna replacements or new security bollards. The Commission of
Fine Arts did something similar in February.
Rodney
Mims Cook Jr., the Trump-appointed chair of the arts panel, countered that the
group had significant input, including in unofficial meetings with Mr. Trump
and in feedback objecting to a large pediment previously planned for the top of
the ballroom’s south portico. “We asked him to tone down the porch,” he said.
“We asked him to remove the pediments. We asked him for landscape. All of that
he did.”
Will
Scharf, the chair of the planning commission and the White House staff
secretary, said his commission had handled the ballroom with the same
deliberative pace it has other analogous projects, like an overhaul of the
Capital One Arena and the plan for a new R.F.K. Stadium. Those projects, he
said, share the ballroom’s sense of urgency and ready funding (characteristics
a memorial or museum may not have).
“If not
for President Trump, his desire to move quickly, and his raising the money to
fund this, a project like this could languish for years with no decision or
action,” Mr. Scharf said. “And we could still be debating it at N.C.P.C.
meetings 20 years from now.”
Some big
projects in Washington have been bogged down for years. And it’s certainly
possible that the White House fence would have been just fine with five inches
between the pickets, and that the African American history museum would have
looked nice with a Custom Artisan #4 finish instead.
But it’s
harder to argue that a major addition to the White House needs swifter public
scrutiny than its fence (these commissions have meanwhile continued to push
back on projects that are not the president’s personal priorities). Many
concerns about the ballroom are also not minor ones. And without further work,
the details provoking those concerns will become lasting features of the
capital.
For
starters, the ballroom is set to become the dominant anchor at the end of
Pennsylvania Avenue, a link planned by Pierre Charles L’Enfant to connect the
Capitol and the White House.
“The
ballroom is literally an imposition between two branches of our government,”
said David Scott Parker, an architect on the board of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, and one of more than 30,000 people who wrote to the
planning commission objecting to the building.
The
proposed East Wing is about 60 percent larger than the White House residence by
floor area. But by cubic volume, and including the porticos, it’s more than
three times as large because of the ballroom’s vast ceiling height. Viewed from
the south, the ballroom’s size will make it the dominant building of the White
House complex, with a portico bigger than that of the residence and a lopsided
appearance disrupting any symmetry with the West Wing.
The south
portico, which was not part of the addition’s initial design, also has no doors
into the ballroom. And all of the columns will block views and daylight from
inside.
During
the planning commission review earlier this month, the project’s architect,
Shalom Baranes, acknowledged that the south portico was more ornamental than
functional.
“Is it an
absolutely essential part of the program? I would say no, it’s not,” he said.
“Really it’s an aesthetic decision to have it there.”
That
decision, however, is part of the reason the White House driveway planned by
the famed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted must be rerouted, breaking
its symmetry (the kind of detail the planning commission might have dwelled on
in the past).
Inside
the East Wing, the ballroom itself is far larger than industry standards
suggest is necessary for 1,000 guests (by that standard, it might fit 1,500
people). Mr. Baranes said the extra space was needed to accommodate TV cameras,
journalists, security and ceremonial processions. But one result is that events
with fewer than 1,000 people could feel empty.
The
commercial kitchen and first lady’s office suite on the lower level are
likewise supersized. And on the second-floor colonnade connecting the ballroom
to the executive residence, a wall with masonry niches designed to look like
windows will face the north (the direction from which most tourists get a
glimpse of the White House). Behind them is a row of bathroom stalls.
Many
criticisms of the building, Mr. Scharf said, fail to acknowledge that the White
House has continually evolved since its beginning. “As our country’s developed,
so too has the White House complex,” he said, adding that he would vote on the
project this week after having read every one of the letters the commission
received. “I see the ballroom project as a natural extension of that history.”
Most of
the concerns that have been raised touch not on how the building will be used
inside, but on how it will face the public. That makes seemingly prosaic
matters — the height of the roofline, the jog in the road, the square footage
of the ballroom — also symbolic ones.
“This is
the People’s House, this is not Donald Trump’s, or Joe Biden’s or the next
president’s,” said Phil Mendelson, who sits on the planning commission in his
role as the chairman of the D.C. Council. He has been a lone objector trying to
raise these questions before the commission.
Now,
barring intervention by the courts, time is apparently up to resolve them.
“I still
don’t understand,” Mr. Mendelson said, “why the ceiling height has to be 40
feet.”
Luke
Broadwater contributed reporting.
Correction:
March 29, 2026
An
earlier version of this article misstated a job title for Thomas Gallas. He led
a design and planning firm; he’s not an architect.
Judge Orders Construction Stopped on Trump’s White House Ballroom
Judge
Orders Construction Stopped on Trump’s White House Ballroom
A federal
judge required the president to seek lawmakers’ input and pursue traditional
approvals before proceeding with the $400 million replacement for the East
Wing.
Zach
Montague
By Zach
Montague
Reporting
from Washington
March 31,
2026
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/31/us/politics/trump-white-house-ballroom-construction-ruling.html
A federal
judge ordered on Tuesday that construction be halted on President Trump’s
proposed White House ballroom, to be built in place of the demolished East
Wing, saying work must come to a stop until the project receives a go-ahead
from Congress.
The
decision delivered the first meaningful setback to the president’s increasingly
audacious efforts to redesign the White House and Washington. It came after
months of litigation in front of Judge Richard J. Leon, an appointee of
President George W. Bush, who had previously declined to step in.
In a
35-page opinion, Judge Leon wrote that Mr. Trump likely did not have the
authority to act without consulting Congress to replace entire sections of the
White House — changes that could endure for generations.
In an
opinion punctuated by 19 exclamation points, Judge Leon also reiterated
concerns he had raised for months in court: that from the start, the
administration has provided shifting and questionable accounts of who was in
charge of the project and under what authority private donations could be
accepted to fund it.
“Unless
and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization,
construction has to stop!” he wrote. “But here is the good news. It is not too
late for Congress to authorize the continued construction of the ballroom
project.”
Sign up
for the Docket newsletter. Adam Liptak
helps you make sense of legal developments in a turbulent time. Get it sent to
your inbox.
Judge
Leon wrote that if the White House sought congressional approval, the
legislature would “retain its authority over the nation’s property and its
oversight over the government’s spending.”
“The
National Trust’s interests in a constitutional and lawful process will be
vindicated,” he added. “And the American people will benefit from the branches
of government exercising their constitutionally prescribed roles.”
“Not a
bad outcome, that!” he concluded.
The
decision is technically temporary, a preliminary injunction barring further
construction while the litigation continues. And Judge Leon paused his own
ruling for two weeks to allow the government to appeal.
The Trump
administration filed that appeal on Tuesday, within hours of the ruling.
During a
public event at the White House shortly after, Mr. Trump delivered a lengthy
defense of the project, insisting that it was no different than previous
renovation projects at the campus that were completed without consulting
lawmakers, and that it was necessary to make national security improvements.
“Congressional
approval is not necessary to put up a ballroom,” Mr. Trump said.
Judge
Leon’s ruling suggested he was satisfied that the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, a nonprofit chartered by Congress to guard America’s historic
buildings which had sued over the project, had put together a workable
challenge following several misfires.
In
December and again in February, he declined to step in and deferred to the
Trump administration, which has argued that an order halting the project would
leave an open construction site next to the president’s residence, impairing
the ability to do basic work at the White House and even jeopardizing national
security.
Lawyers
representing the government have also asserted the project falls within the
president’s personal authority to modernize or improve the White House grounds.
Mr. Trump began construction of the project shortly after demolishing the East
Wing in October, arguing that a ballroom was needed to host larger events
indoors, without spilling onto the South Lawn.
But at
every turn, Judge Leon had disagreed with Mr. Trump’s position.
At
several hearings, he implored Yaakov Roth, a senior Justice Department lawyer,
to “be serious” and back off claims that the project was comparable to minor
renovations of presidencies past, including the addition of a swimming pool or
a tennis pavilion. He repeatedly referred to the project’s planning and
execution as a “Rube Goldberg machine.”
By March,
Judge Leon appeared to have lost patience with what he described as shifting
positions by the government, particularly surrounding the role the National
Park Service has played in approving the project and acting as a financial
conduit for private donations supporting it. President Trump has forged ahead
with design work as the litigation stalled, working with an architect and
periodically showing off renderings of the project. On Sunday, the president
flashed the most recent revisions to reporters on Air Force One after a review
by The New York Times highlighted elements that architectural experts said
appeared careless and betrayed how little the project has been scrutinized.
In a
winding post on social media reacting to the ruling, Mr. Trump lobbed
criticisms at the National Trust, which is also involved in a lawsuit over the
president’s attempts to seize control of the John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts.
“The
National Trust for Historic Preservation sues me for a Ballroom that is under
budget, ahead of schedule, being built at no cost to the Taxpayer, and will be
the finest Building of its kind anywhere in the World,” he wrote.
The
National Trust has argued that the project was rushed through with no warning
to or input from Congress. It also contended that the way Mr. Trump proposed to
pay for it was legally problematic.
The
president says he has raised more than $350 million from personal backers and
around two dozen tech, cryptocurrency and defense corporations to fund the
building of the structure without government support. A report in November by
the group Public Citizen found that two-thirds of the publicly identified
corporate donors had received government contracts, collectively valued at more
than $275 billion.
Judge
Leon repeatedly told lawyers involved in the case that he believed the issues
would ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.
He waved
away one issue raised by Mr. Roth at a hearing last year with a prediction:
“You’ll get your chance at the court of review,” he said.
Zach
Montague is a Times reporter covering the federal courts, including the legal
disputes over the Trump administration’s agenda.
Published on 18 March: Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, defines the escalation trap (also known as the "smart bomb trap") as a strategic failure where a military power mistake tactical success for strategic victory.
.jpeg)
The escalation trap Robert Pape
Robert
Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, defines the
escalation trap (also known as the "smart bomb trap") as a strategic
failure where a military power mistake tactical success for strategic victory.
This
phenomenon typically unfolds in three stages:
Stage
One: The Illusion of Success. A technologically superior force uses precision
"smart bombs" to achieve near 100% tactical success—destroying
targets, killing leaders, and damaging infrastructure.
Stage
Two: Strategic Failure. Despite the destruction, the opponent does not concede
politically. Instead, the attacks often fuel nationalism, making the regime and
its society more radicalized and resilient against the foreign attacker.
Stage
Three: Expanded War. Frustrated by the lack of political change, leaders choose
to escalate further—potentially putting "boots on the ground"—rather
than reconsidering their strategy.
Core
Argument
Pape
argues that "bombs don't just hit targets; they change politics".
While precision strikes are highly effective at physical destruction, they
frequently fail to produce stable political outcomes or regime change because
they strengthen the enemy's resolve. Pape has recently applied this framework
to analyze the U.S.-Iran conflict, warning that reliance on airpower alone
risks pulling the U.S. into a protracted and uncontrollable war
During a Pentagon briefing on March 31, 2026, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth explicitly declined to reaffirm the United States' commitment to NATO's collective defense principle, stating that the future of the alliance's security guarantees is a decision that rests with President Donald Trump.
Hegseth
says that the US will review the Nato alliance
towards the future
During a
Pentagon briefing on March 31, 2026, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth
explicitly declined to reaffirm the United States' commitment to NATO's
collective defense principle, stating that the future of the alliance's
security guarantees is a decision that rests with President Donald Trump.
Hegseth’s
remarks represent a significant shift in U.S. policy and follow growing
tensions between the Trump administration and European allies over the ongoing
conflict with Iran.
Key
Points of Hegseth's Statement
Decision
Deferred to the President: Hegseth indicated that commitment to Article 5 is a
decision for the president.
Frustration
with Allies: He criticized France, Italy, Spain, and Britain for failing to
provide support during operations against Iran.
Questioning
Value: He questioned the alliance's worth, stating allies must "fight for
themselves".
Strategic
Shift: The Pentagon is moving toward "go-it-alone" planning,
prioritizing the Western Hemisphere over traditional ties.
Key
Points of Hegseth's Statement
Decision
Deferred to the President: When questioned regarding Article 5, Hegseth
deferred the decision on commitment to President Trump.
Frustration
with Allies: He criticized several European nations for failing to assist in
operations against Iran.
Questioning
the Alliance’s Value: He questioned the relevance of an alliance that does not
support the U.S. in critical times.
Trump Seeks to Redefine ‘Regime Change’ in Iran War
News
Analysis
Trump
Seeks to Redefine ‘Regime Change’ in Iran War
President
Trump and his aides have made contradictory statements on whether the United
States and Israel have transformed the Iranian government through violence.
Edward
Wong
By Edward
Wong
Edward
Wong reports on U.S. foreign policy from Washington, after having covered China
and the Iraq war from overseas.
March 31,
2026
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/31/us/politics/trump-regime-change-iran.html
Regime
change has occurred in Iran. Or it hasn’t. It is a goal of the war. Except it
isn’t.
Those are
some of the dizzying messages that have come from President Trump and his aides
in recent days. The phrase “regime change” has flown from lips this week like
fighter jets crisscrossing the Persian Gulf.
But there
appears to be disagreement among top administration officials on what the
phrase means, or whether the United States and Israel have achieved it in four
weeks of war against Iran.
Defense
Secretary Pete Hegseth made an unequivocal declaration about the Iranian
government at a news conference on Tuesday: “This new regime, because regime
change has occurred, should be wiser than the last. President Trump will make a
deal. He is willing.”
A common
definition of regime change is a forced transformation of government or
leadership that results in structural alterations in policies, politics and
governance. In Iran, a theocratic leadership that is authoritarian and
anti-American — and that continues to wage war — remains in place.
On
Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also the president’s national
security adviser, expressed some doubt in an interview with ABC News about
whether anything had really changed in Iran.
“The
people who lead them, this clerical regime, that is the problem,” he said. “And
if there are new people now in charge who have a more reasonable vision of the
future, that would be good news for us, for them, for the entire world. But we
also have to be prepared for the possibility, maybe even the probability, that
that is not the case.”
Later,
speaking to Al Jazeera, Mr. Rubio made it clear that destroying Iran’s weapons
was important because the current leadership — the new regime, as Mr. Hegseth
puts it — is an adversary.
“I think
the best way to stability, given the people who are in charge in Iran, is to
destroy the ability of Iran in the future to launch these missiles and these
drones against their infrastructure and civilian populations,” Mr. Rubio said,
referring to potential targets in the Middle East.
He added
that “our objectives here from the very beginning had nothing to do with the
leadership.”
But Mr.
Trump opened the war on Feb. 28 by working with Israel to carry out a strike
that killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, and other top
officials. Hours later, he called for Iranians to overthrow their government
sometime after the bombing stopped. The uprising, which was promised to Mr.
Trump by Israeli leaders, has not materialized, but the president is saying
mission accomplished on regime change.
In fact,
he said, the United States has been so successful that it has ended not just
one, but two Iranian regimes.
“We’ve
had regime change, if you look, already because the one regime was decimated,
destroyed. They’re all dead,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Sunday aboard Air
Force One. “The next regime is mostly dead. And the third regime, we’re dealing
with different people than anybody’s dealt with before. It’s a whole different
group of people. So I would consider that regime change.”
To
emphasize the point, he said, “Regime change is an imperative, but I think we
have it automatically.” On Tuesday afternoon, the president reiterated that he
had “knocked out” two Iranian regimes, one after the other.
Mr.
Trump’s talk of the destruction of two regimes appeared to refer to the initial
attacks that killed Mr. Khamenei and other senior officials and also injured
his son Mojtaba Khamenei, who was later appointed by a group of clerics to be
Iran’s new supreme leader. Iranian and Israeli officials say the son suffered
leg injuries, and he has not appeared in public during the war.
The
younger Mr. Khamenei is considered a hard-line ally of a powerful arm of the
Iranian military, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. The government in
Tehran vows resistance and continues to fight the United States, Israel and
Arab partners, and to block energy shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting
the global economy.
“There
has been personnel change in Iran, not regime change,” said Karim Sadjadpour, a
scholar of Iran at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in
Washington. “Different men with the same ideology.”
Mr.
Trump’s remarks about regime change have muddied the waters. But his military
actions and coercive economic warfare against a handful of nations — Iran,
Venezuela and Cuba — are aimed so far at decapitating leadership to put in
power someone who will accede to U.S. demands, rather than effecting a
wholesale transformation of the political system.
The
president’s aim is to create client states by coercing regime compliance, part
of a greater project of resurrecting empire. And he constantly talks about a
template: the U.S. military’s violent incursion into Venezuela in January to
seize Nicolás Maduro, the country’s president, and Mr. Trump’s subsequent
negotiations over oil and other matters with the acting president, Delcy
Rodríguez, who like Mr. Maduro is a hard-line leftist.
Karoline
Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said at a news conference on Monday
that the United States and Israel had to kill the older Mr. Khamenei and some
of his aides after it proved too difficult to do diplomacy with them. Those
previous leaders “are now no longer on planet Earth,” she said, “because they
lied to the United States and they strung us along in negotiations, and that
was unacceptable to the president, which is why many of the previous leaders
were killed.”
Mr.
Trump’s braggadocio over accomplishing what he calls regime change is fairly
new. In 2016, when he was running for president, he criticized the wasteful
U.S. “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that “we must abandon the
failed policy of nation-building and regime change.” In May, he gave a speech
in Saudi Arabia in which he said that “in the end, the so-called nation
builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionalists
were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.”
Despite
his embrace of war and military violence, Mr. Trump’s instinct to refrain from
committing the United States to completely transforming hostile nations appears
to persist for now.
The
president’s remarks this week asserting that leadership decapitation is regime
change can be interpreted as an attempt to redefine the phrase so that he can
say his original war goal has been met.
“The
administration as a whole seems to be moving away from deep regime change as a
goal of the war,” said Rosemary Kelanic, the director of the Middle East
program at Defense Priorities in Washington. “A real regime change war in Iran
would require boots on the ground — and a lot of them — and Trump wisely
doesn’t want to commit that level of effort when the costs and risks far
outweigh the benefits.”
Edward
Wong reports on global affairs, U.S. foreign policy and the State Department
for The Times.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
