Commentator and television host Bill Maher has ignited a new debate surrounding the proposed White House renovations, expressing sharp criticism of the media’s coverage while offering a pragmatic defense of the controversial ballroom project. During a recent episode of his HBO program, “Real Time,” Maher dismissed the widespread outcry over the construction, stating bluntly, “And the ballroom? I don’t give a sht. I really don’t give a sht.” His remarks, which appeared to surprise his guest, Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz of Florida, were part of a broader critique of news narratives he feels are “always on one side or the other.”

Maher explained his evolving perspective, noting the initial reports framed the project as a desecration of a national monument. “When they first mentioned it, it was all about, ‘Oh, my God, he’s desecrating the White House,’” Maher said. “Then I finally read, ‘Oh, well, they’ve done sh*t to the White House before.’” Central to Maher’s argument is the current method for hosting large-scale diplomatic events. He expressed disbelief that the nation resorts to temporary outdoor structures for state dinners. “They’re doing it in a tent,” Maher said with an incredulous tone. “This is America!”

This sentiment mirrors long-held complaints from President Trump himself, who has lamented the use of tents, describing them as a “disaster” in rainy weather and noting their inconvenient location “more than a football field away from the main entrance.” The president’s desire for a permanent ballroom is not new. During the Obama administration, Trump publicly offered to finance the construction of such a venue. “I was going to put up $100 million to build a ballroom at the White House, because having a tent is not that good,” he stated at a 2016 campaign event in Ohio, adding that his offer was declined.

The current project, estimated to cost around $300 million, is being financed not by taxpayers but by a list of several dozen wealthy individuals, companies, and organizations. While Maher pointed to the private funding as a positive, critics argue this arrangement creates a perception of influence peddling. Following the White House’s release of the donor list on October 23, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow warned that contributing companies may eventually face “a cost to their bottom line when they do things against American values, against the public interest, because they want to please Trump or buy him off or profit somehow from his authoritarian overthrow of our democracy.” The White House has consistently maintained its transparency and denied any risk of impropriety.

Interestingly, Maher’s recent impassioned defense marks a shift from his own commentary just a month prior. In a previous episode, he voiced concern over the project’s timing and implications. “The symbolism is he’s not leaving,” Maher had said. “Who puts in a giant ballroom if you’re leaving?”

In that earlier discussion, his guest, former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, condemned the project as “the destruction of a symbol of this government, of our democracy, of our pluralistic society.” Maher countered Steele’s point by stating, “You’re talking about the White House? Oh, it’s a building, Mike,” a sentiment he repeated in his more recent episode. Despite their disagreement on its symbolic value, Maher did concede a point to Steele regarding procedural oversight. “You know, he should have gotten the permits, but that’s how he does things,” Maher said. “I agree, but it is just a building, first of all. I can’t get this mad about everything, Mike. I just can’t.”

Historically, the White House has undergone numerous renovations, though few match the scale of the current proposal. Presidents have added personal touches, such as Richard Nixon’s bowling alley and Barack Obama’s basketball court, but these were minor in comparison. The last exterior alteration of a similar magnitude was the construction of the East Wing in 1942 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. That project, which is the very section now being demolished to accommodate the new ballroom, was also met with controversy. Republicans at the time accused Roosevelt of wastefulness and of “using the project to bolster his presidency’s image” during wartime. Since then, most major expenditures, including tens to hundreds of millions of dollars under Presidents Truman and Obama, have focused on essential infrastructure and security upgrades rather than dramatic changes to the building’s historic footprint.

On October 21, the White House issued a formal statement defending the project, accusing “unhinged leftists and their Fake News allies” of manufacturing outrage. The announcement championed the ballroom as “a bold, necessary addition that echoes the storied history of improvements and additions from commanders-in-chief to keep the executive residence as a beacon of American excellence.”