Trump’s East Wing ballroom may become the ultimate political “long con” —a project sold as privately financed that gradually conditions the public to accept ever-expanding taxpayer commitments as inevitable and necessary.

When Donald Trump was inaugurated in January 2025, he kicked off with a barrage of executive orders, ‘flooding the zone’ with more than the normal human mind can process effectively, and he hasn’t let up since. So many things have happened, keeping track, and assessing the damage he’s doing to American democracy is a fulltime job. Some of the things he’s done, like starting a war with Iran, attacking Venezuela and kidnapping their president, ordering the destruction of alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—the list goes on—dominate the headlines, causing some of his other misbehavior to have to compete for oxygen in the media biosphere.

One example of the myriad actions he’s thrown against the wall to see if they stick is his much-ballyhooed ballroom which he wants to build on the site of the demolished East Wing of the White House. It gets media now and then, and has even been the subject of a few in-depth analyses. What’s been overlooked, or ignored, is the fact that this project, regardless of the final outcome, is likely to go down in history as the world’s greatest con job, a masterful long con.

Here’s why.

A long con (short for “long confidence game”) is a scam that plays out over time. The mark is slowly conditioned to accept a storyline, small commitments are normalized, and the biggest “ask” comes only after the target has been nudged into believing the outcome is inevitable. In politics, the “mark” is the public, and sometimes even Congress; while the payoff is not just money, but power, precedent, and a new reality that people feel too exhausted to reverse.

Here’s how the long con works.

Start with the pitch. In late July 2025, the White House announced plans for a roughly 90,000-square-foot “event space”/ballroom as part of an “East Wing Modernization Project,” floating an initial estimate of about $200 million and promising it would be paid for by Trump and “patriot donors,” with “not one dollar” coming from taxpayers.

Almost immediately, ethics lawyers and preservation advocates warned that even if private money covered the structure, the federal government would still be on the hook for approvals, operations, maintenance, staffing, and, most importantly, security. There were also concerns by some ethics experts that this project would be an opening for donors to gain favor with this and future administrations.

Then came the familiar creep. By September and October 2025, Trump was publicly revising the price tag upward—first to around $250 million, then to about $300 million—while insisting the financing story had not changed. In the same period, professional organizations pressed for transparency and for the normal historic review process to run its course. Site preparation was underway before those processes were complete, which mattered because once you start ripping things out, “debate” becomes mostly ceremonial.

The decisive move was demolition. Beginning around October 20, 2025, heavy equipment began tearing down the East Wing, and by October 23 the structure had been reduced to rubble—an irreversible act that reframed the argument from “should we do this?” to “how do we finish what’s started?” Trump defended the destruction as necessary for a “beautiful building,” while the White House repeated that private donors would pay. Meanwhile, reporting raised a second-order question: even if a donor pays for walls and chandeliers, who pays for fencing, screening lanes, command posts, blast mitigation, underground work, and the Secret Service footprint that comes with a permanent new mass-gathering venue on the compound?

Through late 2025 into early 2026, the project took on the look of an established “program”: design teams were selected, plans circulated, and federal planning bodies heard waves of public comment. Whatever one thinks of the merits, the direction of travel was clear—construction first, arguments later. By the start of 2026, cranes, barriers, and the language of “modernization” had effectively laundered a vanity addition into the category of routine infrastructure.

In May 2026, the estimate jumped again. Trump acknowledged the price had risen from about $200 million to “something less than $400” million, arguing that “deep rooted studies” had led to a ballroom roughly twice the size and of “far higher quality” than the original concept. That is the classic midpoint of the long con. The mark is told the change is not a change at all, merely an “upgrade” that was “necessary,” decided “long ago,” and somehow still “under budget.”

And then came the big “ask,” dressed up as something else. Senate Republicans began floating ways to put federal money behind the project, including one proposal for $400 million directly and, more consequentially, a much larger proposal that would set aside $1 billion in a budget reconciliation package for Secret Service “security adjustments and upgrades” tied to the East Wing Modernization Project—language that pointed straight at the ballroom site while avoiding the word ballroom. Supporters argued the money would fund only security features, not the “structure,” but that distinction is exactly the point: if taxpayers fund the perimeter hardening, underground work, screening infrastructure, and long-term protective footprint, the public is still paying for the project to function as designed.

Look back at the sequence and the “long con” shape snaps into focus. First, announce a shiny project with a relatively “reasonable” number and a crowd-pleasing pledge—private donors will cover it. Next, begin irreversible work (demolition) so resistance feels futile. Then, quietly expand the scope and normalize larger numbers: $200 million becomes $250 million, becomes $300 million, becomes “something less than $400” million. Finally, when the public is tired and the compound is already a construction zone, shift the costliest and least visible parts to the taxpayer by relabeling them as national security necessities.

Whether or not a single check is ever written for the ballroom’s walls, the con is that the walls were never the real expense. The real expense is the government commitment that follows the concrete: security, operations, and appropriations—forever.

Charles A. Ray served 20 years in the U.S. Army, including two tours in Vietnam. He retired as a senior US diplomat, serving 30 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, with assignments as ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Republic of Zimbabwe, and was the first American consul general in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He also served in senior positions with the Department of Defense and is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

The State Department has been hollowed out. Career diplomats are afraid to speak. Unions have been derecognized. And a Heritage Foundation‑affiliated organization, the Benjamin Franklin Fellowship, now functions like the Communist Party in the Soviet Union: you don’t have to join, but you won’t get ahead if you don’t. In this episode, former Ambassador Eric Rubin tells Peter Mina why he refuses to stay silent – and why he still believes America’s best days can be ahead.

In the latest episode of The Steady State Sentinel, host Peter Mina—founder of the Mina Firm and former DHS civil rights official—sits down with Eric Rubin—a former career diplomat of 38 years who served as U.S. Ambassador to Bulgaria from 2016 to 2019 and as president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) from 2019 to 2023. Rubin now works with the Democratic Resilience Program at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) and serves on the board of directors of The Steady State.

Rubin grew up in a family of activists— his mother was at the March on Washington with Dr. King— and he learned the union songs as a child. That background, he says, is what drives him to speak out when so many others are afraid.

Here is what you need to know from a conversation about the destruction of the nonpartisan Foreign Service, the loss of expertise, and what gives him hope.

“My Life’s Work Is Under Very Serious Threat”

Rubin began his Foreign Service career in 1985, when the United States effectively ran the world. He watched the Cold War end and several hundred million people achieve freedom. He worked in Ukraine, Russia, Thailand, and Bulgaria—helping to build the post‑Cold War order.

Now, he says, that work is being dismantled.

“To some extent, I’m trying to help save my life’s work. And I’m not alone in this. My colleagues—this is true of so many people, my life’s work is under very serious threat.”

The threat is not abstract. The State Department has lost most of its senior career diplomats. Expertise on Iran, Russia, and other critical regions has walked out the door—or been pushed. And the administration has made clear that political loyalty, not competence, is the only currency that matters.

The Benjamin Franklin Fellowship: A Loyalty Test

Rubin draws a stark comparison that has gotten attention. The State Department recently derecognized all of its employee organizations— including AFSA, whichRubin led, and more than 30 other groups, some more than 50 years old. They were simply banned.

At the same time, the Benjamin Franklin Fellowship, a Heritage Foundation project, has been given official recognition and endorsement. Deputy Secretary of State Chris Landau is a proud member and encourages employees to join.

“It’s kind of like the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. If you wanted to get ahead, you damn well had to join. This administration claims to be for meritocracy, but in reality it’s the opposite. Political loyalty is the most important and really the only factor in assignments and promotions,” says Rubin.

The message is clear: you don’t have to join, but you won’t advance if you don’t. And it’s not loyalty to a party. It’s loyalty to one person.

“We Don’t Have a Single Career Diplomat Negotiating with Iran”

Rubin points to the catastrophic war with Iran as the most vivid example of what happens when expertise is purged.

“We have no career diplomat, no career CIA analyst, nobody who knows Iran, nobody who knows how to do diplomatic negotiations. And what a surprise, it’s failing.”

The two negotiators with Iran, Rubin notes, are “Zionist Bibi Netanyahu supporters” who oppose a two‑state solution. He does not question their intelligence, but he does question why anyone would pick them instead of experienced diplomats like former diplomat and CIA Director Bill Burns.

“The idea that we don’t need expertise and knowledge and experience is leading us into really dangerous territory.”

The Erosion of Advice – and the Return of the Spoils System

Rubin traces the current crisis back to a fundamental shift: federal employees no longer have agency. They are afraid to share dissenting opinions. No one will say to a political boss, “I don’t think that’s the right answer, can I tell you why?”

That used to be how things worked. The modern Foreign Service was created in 1924, and the civil service was reformed after the assassination of President Garfield by a job seeker. The idea was simple: nonpartisan, nonpolitical experts give their best advice to elected leaders, and the leaders decide— as long as their decisions are legal.

“That concept is now being essentially eliminated. What we’re risking is sliding back into the spoils system of the 1880s.”

He adds a chilling detail: new employees coming into the Foreign Service are afraid to join AFSA because they fear retaliation. “Once upon a time I would have thought that was impossible. It’s not. It’s real.”

“Even If We Have a New President, Our Allies Won’t Trust Us”

Peter Mina asks the hard question: after all of this, why would any ally trust the United States again? We are just one election away from returning to where we are now.

Rubin acknowledges the pain.

“When President Biden won in 2020 and said ‘America is back,’ our allies asked, ‘For how long?’ In 2026, they won’t even ask that question anymore. The confidence and trust are gone.”

And yet, he still urges people to join the Foreign Service.

“We are going to be the richest, most powerful country in the world for the rest of our lives. And that country needs diplomacy and it needs diplomats. We’ve lost so many people. We need you.”

He acknowledges that things won’t go back to the way they were. USAID cannot be revived. The politics are not conducive. But America must find a way to play a constructive role again, and that starts with recruiting a new generation of officers.

What Gives Him Hope—and What You Can Do

Despite everything, Rubin is not without hope.

“I really do believe we’re at bottom. Things will get better. Can I prove that? Of course not. But I believe it.”

He points to the recent election results in Hungary as a positive sign after years of negative developments. He notes that the judiciary has held in many cases. And he believes that Americans are beginning to understand that “fortress America” is a fantasy.

His calls to action are simple:

“International engagement is the basis of our prosperity and security. Americans need to recognize that and do something about it. Host an exchange student. Support organizations working overseas on food security and public health. And vote.”

He also notes, with a touch of dark humor, that Donald Trump’s visage will soon appear on every U.S. passport, something no other country does, not even Putin’s Russia.

“It’s not done. But that’s what’s happening. The message is: you have to be loyal to the absolute monarch.”

One Quote That Stays With You

“People are afraid to share dissenting opinions. No one is going to say to political bosses, ‘I don’t think that’s the right answer. Can I tell you why?’ That’s how it’s supposed to work. But they don’t dare.”

-Ambassador Eric Rubin

Listen and Watch the full Podcast Here:

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

The Supreme Court’s latest voting rights decision echoes its most infamous precedents, effectively removing Black Americans from meaningful political participation in multiple states and raising profound questions about the Court’s democratic legitimacy.

In the aftermath of the Civil War and the disastrous presidency of Andrew Johnson, Congress in 1868 passed the 14^th Amendment, which guaranteed birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law. In early 1870, the 15^th Amendment, which guaranteed Black males the right to vote, entered into law. The Republican controlled Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act in 1875 as part of reconstruction and to implement the 15^th Amendment with the aim of ensuring equal treatment for Black people in America in public accommodation, transportation, and jury service. In the contested election of 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes ultimately was proclaimed the winner over Samuel Tilden. In exchange for being declared the winner, Hayes brought a formal end to Reconstruction by withdrawing the last Federal troops from South Carolina in 1877 and signing the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. In 1883, a mere eight years after the Civil Rights Act had been made the law of the land, the Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional, laying the groundwork for the even worse “separate but equal” Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896. In ignoring the promises of the 14^th and 15^th Amendments, these two decisions by the Supreme Court provided a firm legal basis for Jim Crow and its attendant horrors across the former Slave States. Black people “were disappeared” from political life for decades.

Frederick Douglass was appropriately outraged by the Supreme Court’s decision to exclude Black people from the civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. As he observed, “the Supreme Court of the United States is the autocratic point in our National Government. No monarch in Europe has a power more absolute over the laws, lives, and liberties of his people, than the Court has over our laws, lives, and liberties.” In noting Roger Taney’s Dred Scott decision, he lamented “O for a Supreme Court of the United States which shall be as true to the claims of humanity, as the Supreme Court formerly was to the demands of slavery! When that day comes, as come it will, a Civil Rights Bill will not be declared unconstitutional and void, in utter and flagrant disregard of the objects and intentions of the National legislature by which it was enacted, and of the rights plainly secured by the Constitution.”

Douglass’ vision did come true with the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 and its reaffirmation by Congress in 1982. Then on April 29, 2026, Douglass’ lament replaced his vision. After gunning for the Voting Rights Act for decades, John Roberts and his Majority did what his spiritual predecessors did in 1883: they have “disappeared” Black people from political life in at least Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and Mississippi. They may succeed in other states with substantial Black populations such as North Carolina and South Carolina as well.

As the “autocratic point in our National Government”, the Court can use its unique position to be the defender of Constitutional rights against aggressive state action, or it can turn itself into a super-legislature, in which its policy views overwhelm the democratic institutions charged with making laws. The Justices can put their collective thumb on the political process, aiding the political and economic interests of the party that nominated them to the Supreme Court under the guise of merely “calling balls and strikes”. The Court, which is composed of nine unelected justices with life tenure, still maintains the power that Frederick Douglass described over a century and a half ago. It can support democratic principles and uphold the Constitution, to include the post-Civil War amendments, or it can contribute to democracy’s demise by enhancing, if not entrenching, one party rule.

Given its open hostility to minority rights and, in Louisiana v. Callais, turning the rationale that underscores the post-Civil War Amendments on its head, the Court has achieved a long term goal of the Chief Justice and its majority. The result will almost certainly be the disappearance of Black elected representatives from the Deep South, the same outcome that resulted from the 1883 decision. To the extent the Roberts Majority has any legitimacy after its romp through established precedent and unprecedented use of the Shadow Docket, the use of its power to overturn one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation in the nation’s history drains its legitimacy reserves down to near zero.

America has struggled with slavery and race since slaves were first brought to the shores of Virginia in 1619. The Civil War, initially fought by the United States to save the Union, ultimately became a war to end slavery. The Civil War clearly did not resolve the question of equal rights for the formerly enslaved. The 14^th and 15^th Amendments were intended to provide a Constitutional basis for those rights. While America has made great strides as a multi-racial diverse democracy in its 250 years of independence, the Roberts Majority has shown that the struggle for equal rights is never fully won.

James Petrila spent over thirty years as a lawyer in the Intelligence Community, working at the National Security Agency and, for most of his career,at the Central Intelligence Agency. He has taught courses on counterterrorism law and legal issues at the CIA at the George Washington University School of Law. He is currently a senior advisor to the Institute for the Study of States of Exception and is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

This week The Steady State reveals the gradual but consistent nature of the autocratic decline we are experiencing: not in sudden crisis but in steady transformation, where democratic institutions are increasingly bent toward political ends rather than breaking outright.

Law enforcement and national security tools show signs of being used for retribution, while whistleblowers and accountability mechanisms face growing pressure, weakening the system’s ability to self-correct. At the same time, purges and politicization are eroding professional expertise across government, degrading capacity in ways that are gradual but lasting.

No single development is conclusive on its own; rather, it is the cumulative effect—each step normalizing the next—that is reshaping governance into something more personalized, less constrained by rules, and more dependent on loyalty than law. This is not collapse, but a quiet adaptation with profound implications.

As norms erode and retaliation rises, governance shifts from predictable law to discretionary power.

This week’s trending post from social media! Join us on your favorite platform.

A free press does not exist to protect presidents from uncomfortable evidence. It exists to put relevant facts before the public.

MISSION

As part of The Steady State purpose to to both warn and educate the American people about threats to our constitutional democracy, members regularly visit college campuses for discussions with students and faculty. Executive Director Steven A. Cash was recently invited to his alma mater, Vassar College, for such an event.

In this episode of Vassar College’s “What is Engaged Pluralism Podcast,” Kimberly Williams Brown hosts Steven Cash as he discusses the event, a campus talk that was disrupted. Cash urges civic engagement, dialogue and constitutional literacy, while warning that both rising political polarization and attempts to control speech, whether by protesters or government, reflect broader risks to pluralism and democratic norms.

#HOLDFAST

Leave a comment

Listen to the Sentinel podcast

Share The Steady State

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.