Newsom attacks White House press aide with cheap shot 'Hunger Games' jibe over $200m ballroom
The California Governor compared Karoline Leavitt to Effie Trinket - the aristocratic character from The Hunger Games known for her flamboyant outfits and privilege.
He painted the project as the architectural equivalent of Marie Antoinette's renowned putdown - 'Let them eat cake.'
The digital stunt, posted from Newsom's official press office X account, featured a photoshopped image of Effie Trinket holding up ballroom renderings inside the White House press room just as Leavitt had done earlier in the day.
Echoing the snobby language from the Hunger Games franchise, Newsom wrote: 'While all the Districts pay extra for groceries and everyday goods, the White House is excited to announce that the Capitol is creating a grand ballroom for opulent parties!
'May the odds be ever in your favor!!!'
But the post quickly backfired on Newsom, with Trump supporters rushing to defend Leavitt.
'It's not being paid for by taxpayers - but you knew that,' chimed in one X user.
'Trump and donors are footing the bill, not taxpayers. You seem to have *purposely* left that out,' explained another.
'Opulent parties? Like you and your cronies at the French Laundry during COVID?' jabbed another, referring to one of Newsom's biggest missteps during Covid when he was pictured dining with a large group of friends despite pandemic restrictions.
But the California Democrat wasn't done.
He followed up with a tweet mocking the Trump administration's priorities.
'They're more interested in defending their ballroom than the 17 million they kicked off health care.'
Then in a third tweet dripping with sarcasm from his personal account, Newsom responded directly to the White House announcement: 'Oh thank god - this is what the American people were desperately pleading with you to do!'
Leavitt, for her part, remained focused on the policy as she unveiled renderings for the planned 90,000sq ft State Ballroom, detailing the privately funded construction project she said would allow the White House to host major diplomatic events without resorting to makeshift tents on the South Lawn.
'The White House is one of the most beautiful and historic buildings in the world,' Leavitt said.
'But it does not have a space that can accommodate major functions without installing large and unsightly tents 100 yards from the main building entrance.
'This ballroom will change that,' she added, noting the facility would hold up to 650 guests, a massive upgrade from the East Room's 200-person capacity.
She said construction would begin in September, with completion expected 'well before the end of President Trump's term.'
Claims: The California governor mocked the White House defending the planned ballroom despite none of the money coming from public funds
Too clever by half: In another sarcastic tweet Newsom continued to mock the announcement of the new ballroom
For his part, President Trump embraced the ballroom plan with his usual bravado.
'We're good at building,' he said on Thursday. 'I'm good at building things, and we'll get it built quickly and on time. It'll be beautiful - top of the line.'
The ballroom, he said, would reflect the design elegance of Mar-a-Lago and Turnberry, two of his signature properties, and would replace the East Wing - home to the First Lady's office - which will be temporarily relocated and modernized.
Despite Newsom's implication, taxpayer dollars will not fund the project.
Leavitt confirmed that Trump and private donors will cover the entire $200 million cost, although donor names were not disclosed.
The ballroom will be built just south of the main mansion, and renderings show a white-columned neoclassical structure that mimics the White House's famous facade.
It will be the first major structural addition to the Executive Mansion in nearly a century.
The East Wing will not be demolished, but repurposed during the construction period.
Leavitt reiterated the ballroom's diplomatic utility. 'This new facility will give the United States a world-class venue to host global leaders with the dignity and grandeur that such occasions deserve.'
White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles emphasized the administration's commitment to architectural integrity.
'President Trump is a builder at heart and has an extraordinary eye for detail.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Tech giant's stock plummets after Trump demands CEO resigns over China links
Intel's shares are tumbling before markets opened Thursday after President Donald Trump said in a social media post that the chipmaker's CEO needs to resign. 'The CEO of Intel is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately,' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!' Trump made the post after Senator Tom Cotton sent a letter to Intel Chairman Frank Yeary expressing concern over CEO Lip-Bu Tan's investments and ties to semiconductor firms that are reportedly linked to the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Liberation Army. Cotton specifically called out Tan's recent leadership of Cadence Design Systems in the letter. The tech company admitted in July to selling its products to China's National University of Defense Technology in violation of U.S. export controls. 'In March 2025, Intel appointed Lip-Bu Tan as its new CEO,' Cotton wrote in the letter. 'Mr. Tan reportedly controls dozens of Chinese companies and has a stake in hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms. At least eight of these companies reportedly have ties to the Chinese People´s Liberation Army.' Intel's stock dropped more than 4 percent in premarket trading.
The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
Could Trump's ceasefire summit with Putin actually achieve a breakthrough?
Both the White House and the Kremlin have confirmed that a US-Russia summit will take place in the coming days, with reports suggesting a possible three-way meeting that would also include Ukraine's President Zelensky. The news follows three hours of talks between Vladimir Putin and Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff, following his fourth visit to Moscow. If either summit happens, this could mark the most progress towards ending the war since Donald Trump came to office and pledged, unsuccessfully, to end the conflict within 24 hours. But this trilateral encounter is another high-stakes gamble. Top-level diplomacy does not usually happen like this. The lead time for an old-fashioned US-Russia summit would commonly be months, with the Kremlin in particular favouring meticulous preparation. So what has changed? An obvious answer would be Trump's ultimatum to Putin to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine by this Friday, 'or else' – that last remaining unspecified, but thought to include new economic sanctions, including on countries, such as India, that continue to buy Russian oil. There was also Trump's announcement that two nuclear submarines were to be repositioned, apparently in response to threats made, not for the first time, by former president Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chair of Russia's security council. However, there is no way any Kremlin leader, least of all Putin, could be seen to be yielding to outside pressure. Putin's insouciance over Trump's deadline on Ukraine, and the Kremlin's studied non-reaction to the nuclear deployments, spoke volumes. Above all, a summit on the old superpower model is no concession on Putin's part, but something he has long sought. A question often asked, but rarely answered, is what cards Trump has to play concerning Russia and the war in Ukraine. The threat of further Western sanctions has proved ineffective in forcing any change. The US is no longer funding weapons for Ukraine – it has passed that responsibility to the Europeans – to what effect remains to be seen. The war has slowly turned in Russia's favour, leaving little incentive for it to halt hostilities now. But the US has at least two things to offer that Russia craves. The first is enshrined in a bilateral summit, which would signal a return to recognition of Russia as an international power with interests of its own and a demonstrative end to the isolation that the Biden administration and the Europeans tried to impose. The second is a willingness to address what Russia sees as wider issues affecting security. The two decades that Putin has been in power have seen the steady dismantling of almost all the security architecture built during the Cold War. Russia wants some of this back, which is what it means when it talks about the need to solve issues underlying the Ukraine war – not just ending the war itself. While it can reasonably be argued that Russia brought this insecurity on itself with its all-out invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia's view is that its security concerns go back to at least 2008, when Nato hedged about eventual membership for Ukraine and then when Ukraine abandoned its neutral status in 2014. For Putin to agree to a summit with Trump, the agenda has to go beyond Ukraine and encompass wider issues of security. A bilateral summit along these lines could just be enough to make what would undoubtedly be a concession on Putin's part – a trilateral summit with Zelensky – worth showing up for. Compared with the reasons that might take Putin to either summit, the rationale for Trump and Zelensky is far clearer. Despite his use of force against Iran, Trump sees himself as a peacemaker – with a Nobel Prize in his sights. Reconnecting with Russia also serves US interests in potentially loosening Putin's need for China. Zelensky has rightly always objected to talks about Ukraine being held without Ukraine. Having mended his fences with Trump after February's Oval Office ambush, he is also less wary of the president's motives than he was. Looming over all, though, is the state of the war, which is not moving in Kyiv's direction, and the first real intimations of domestic discontent in recent anti-corruption protests. Nor would there appear to be any legal bar. A presidential decree that forbade any Ukrainian leader from talking to Putin has been disregarded since May, when Zelensky said he was prepared to meet Putin – although those talks, planned for Istanbul, did not happen at that level. As for a venue, Trump might well favour the White House; Putin would doubtless prefer a neutral location, such as Geneva or somewhere in the Gulf. Zelensky will go anywhere to defend Ukraine's interests. The prospect is so momentous that it seems almost to tempt fate to mention it. Could it be that after three and a half years, the war in Ukraine is nearing its end?
The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump demands new census using ‘2024 election information' and to weed out migrants in population totals
President Donald Trump on Thursday said he has ordered the Commerce Department to re-run the count of the U.S. population that took place five years ago while excluding the counting of any person in the country without legal status. Writing on Truth Social, Trump said he'd asked the department, which oversees the U.S. Census Bureau, to 'immediately' start what he called 'a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures' making use of 'the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024.' He also said the new count would exclude anyone in the country illegally. Trump's demand appears to be aimed at deliberately undercounting the population in large cities that often send Democrats to Congress by excluding anyone without legal status from the census count. It's unclear how any of what he said he is demanding comports with either the U.S. Constitution and Title 13 of the United States Code, the set of laws governing the conduct of the census. Both require the 'census of population' to be conducted on April 1 at the start of every decade, with state populations reported for the purpose of apportioning House of Representatives seats by January of the next year. And while there is a provision in the law allowing a 'mid-decade census' five years into a given decade, such a survey was supposed to take place on April 1 of this year and the government is expressly prohibited by law from using it for 'apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States' or the drawing of Congressional districts.
