The White House has awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $500 million to Virginia-based Clark Construction for the construction of a new East Wing ballroom, bypassing standard federal procurement rules, according to a copy of the agreement obtained by The Washington Post.
The contract was routed through the Executive Residence, an office that is exempt from requirements that federal agencies seek competitive bids and make contract details public. This loophole allowed the administration to avoid the usual transparency and competition safeguards.
President Trump was directly involved in some cost negotiations for the ballroom, the Post reported. Clark Construction, which has ties to the president, charged a 3 percent profit margin on early work—standard for large government projects—but is still positioned to earn tens of millions of dollars from the overall project.
The Hill has not independently verified the report and has reached out to the White House and Clark Construction for comment.
The project, which Trump has said will cost $600 million, includes a ballroom capable of seating 1,000 guests, a drone port on the roof, and a military facility beneath. Despite court challenges aimed at halting construction, the White House has pressed forward, arguing the project is necessary for security reasons.
Last month, Trump requested $1 billion from Congress for security upgrades tied to the ballroom, after earlier stating the project would not be funded by taxpayers. However, the Post previously reported that more than half of the project's costs are being covered by taxpayer dollars.
The ballroom is just one component of a broader renovation agenda Trump has pursued in Washington. He has also overseen the refurbishment of several fountains and parks, and is planning a 250-foot triumphal arch. The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was recently repainted and repaired, but has drawn scrutiny for peeling paint and algae growth—problems Trump blamed on vandals.
The no-bid contract has reignited debate over the administration's use of emergency exemptions and its approach to federal contracting. Critics argue the deal exemplifies a pattern of sidestepping oversight, while supporters maintain the security rationale justifies the expedited process.
This development comes amid broader concerns about executive power and transparency. For context, Trump has previously made expansive claims about presidential authority, as detailed in reports on his 'no limits' power stance, which have drawn comparisons to authoritarian leaders. Meanwhile, the administration's handling of security upgrades and contracting practices continues to face legal and congressional scrutiny.
