WASHINGTON — Higher electric rates? Massive data centers looming over neighborhoods? Ugly political fights over what to do about them?

The future of data centers and their huge appetite for electricity is quickly escalating as a political flashpoint from coast to coast, moving from cities and states now to the nation’s capital. 

Bills are under debate in Congress. The Trump administration has weighed in. Lobbying is intensifying. The Environmental  Protection Agency is proposing changes.

But finding consensus on how to proceed in D.C. is tough, with the industry spreading around millions to make its case, some lawmakers pushing a moratorium, and others looking for ways to ease the burden on Americans without halting development. 

At the grassroots, intense opposition continues breaking out. In early May, community members screamed and booed when commissioners in Box Elder County, Utah, unanimously approved two resolutions in support of a 40,000-acre data center campus proposed for an unincorporated site in the county. 

Asked if he sees any momentum in Congress to do anything significant about the potential spread of data centers, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said in an interview, “Only with voters.” 

Hawley and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., are pushing a plan to assure consumers they will pay no increases in utility rates because of data centers.

Getting Congress to act is more complicated. “Some communities may have too many, but some would like the opportunity to have one of these data centers that pay a lot of local taxes,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who represents a state embroiled in its own fight over the issue, said in an interview.

There is general agreement that the issues need exploring, and fast.

“Demand for reliable energy is rising faster than at any point in history. Clearly, we will need more generation and transmission, and a great deal more of it,” said House Energy Subcommittee Chairman Robert Latta, R-Ohio, at a May 13 hearing. 

The Data Center Coalition, the industry’s membership association, says it’s eager to work with lawmakers and consumers.

“Data centers power modern life—from telehealth and digital classrooms to banking, air travel, financial transactions, and online shopping. With the average household using more than 20 connected devices, this infrastructure is not optional; it is foundational,” said Cy McNeill, coalition senior director of federal affairs.

“The data center industry is committed to being a good neighbor in communities where it operates, which includes the responsible use of key resources like water and energy,” he said

What are data centers?

Data centers in 2023 used about 4.4% of total U.S. electricity,  according to a report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

It predicted that percentage could double or triple by 2028 to meet the needs of growing amounts of data, notably artificial intelligence.

A data center is “a physical facility that houses and runs large computer systems,” said a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

As AI needs grow, CRS said, so have hyperscale data centers. These tend to contain at least 5,000 computer servers and at least 10,000 square feet of space, roughly four to five times the size of a standard single family home. 

All this can impact consumers. A ratepayer’s bill is generally determined by how much it costs to generate electricity and to deliver it. Rates are generally set by state or local regulators.

CRS found in its May 12 report that in most areas of the country, “little evidence existed that data center demand was affecting electricity rates nationwide.”

Can data center development be stopped?

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., are sponsoring moratorium legislation.

Their plan would bar new AI data centers until “strong national safeguards are in place” that ensure AI is safe and effective and the economic benefits of AI and robotics will benefit workers.

The government would also have to guarantee that AI does not increase electricity or utility prices or harm the environment.

That idea has gained little traction. A moratorium “would be suicidal for the country,” said Rep. Gary Palmer, R-Ala., a House Energy Subcommittee member.

Kaine explained the concern: ”The idea of a moratorium basically would be saying to all our competitors in the world we have an edge on this now but we’re going to let you catch up and race ahead of us.”

One area where he thought lawmakers could find common ground involved permitting reform. Data centers now can need different permits, depending on their location, function and other factors.

Tackling permit reform could be complex, as most of the process falls to states. As CRS wrote, “Data centers require permits for various aspects of their construction — such as roads, buildings, telecommunications, and utilities “

That can include permits for connections to the local electric grid, any on-site electricity generation, and backup electricity facilities, CRS said, as well as connections to the local natural gas pipeline system.

The Environmental Protection Agency on May 11 took one step, proposing making it easier for data centers and other projects to start construction even though they haven’t yet received federal clean air permits.

“The change will support the development of Artificial Intelligence infrastructure and power generation” an EPA statement said.

It called the proposal “a significant step forward in the Trump EPA’s efforts to provide affordable baseload power for American families and to advance the data centers essential to making the U.S. the AI capital of the world.” 

In addition, the White House in March announced a “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” aimed at companies involved with centers. Major tech companies agreed to its points.

It says that “Companies will build, bring, or buy the new generation resources and electricity needed to satisfy their new energy demands, paying the full cost of those resources whether by building, or buying from, new or otherwise additive power plants.”

Where possible, these companies will also add more capacity that serves the broader public by increasing supply. 

Congress wants more guardrails

Saying “a handshake and a promise from these tech companies is not enough”  Rep. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, last month introduced legislation to guarantee data centers “pay the full cost of their energy demands and infrastructure needs (and) studies the environmental impacts of data centers.”

Other legislative initiatives include:

–The Energy Bills Relief Act. With 148 Democratic sponsors, led by Reps. Mike Levin, D-Calif., and Sean Casten, D-Ill., it would ensure that “facilities like data centers are paying for their own costs because it’s not fair for their expenses to be pushed onto your household if one opens in your area.”

–The Guaranteeing Rate Insulation from Data Centers (GRID Act).  The Hawley-Blumenthal plan would guarantee no increase in consumer utility prices due to data centers, and make sure that new data centers “use energy from power generation sources that are separate from the grid.”

–The Power for the People Act, which has Democratic support in the House and Senate. It would direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to make sure data centers pay for local transmission upgrades they need.

The bill “balances the need for data center development without pushing those costs onto consumers,” said Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., its chief House sponsor.

–The Fair Allocation of Interstate Rates Act.  Sponsored by Rep. Julie Fedorchak, R-N.D., It would “prevent households from being forced to subsidize transmission projects built to satisfy another state’s green energy goals.” 

Currently, regional transmission groups spread costs of big interstate lines to consumers throughout the region.

Latta, the subcommittee chairman, called it “a practical solution to place the burden of renewable portfolio standard costs on the states that choose to adopt those requirements.”

What’s standing in the way?

Politics and, as Hawley put it, “M-o-n–e-y.”

OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money in politics, found “The electric manufacturing and equipment sector, including firms like Microsoft and Oracle, has poured more than $226 million into lobbying activity in 2025.”

That spending is aimed in part at backing what OpenSecrets called “the rapid growth of data centers and to address the resulting strain on the nation’s power grid.”

The Data Center Coalition’s McNeill said the industry “is committed to working with communities, local officials, and state and federal leaders to ensure the continued responsible development of this critical industry while protecting families and businesses.”

The Data Center Coalition, he said, “will continue to provide education on the data center industry and look forward to continued engagement with the administration, Congress, and other key stakeholders.”

Also, the data center issue has become bound with other incendiary matters. 

Discussing the moratorium idea, Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, said in an interview, “Of course they (Democrats) are pushing for that. They’re anti-building, they’re anti-American, they’re anti-everything. They’d rather see Iranian oil be sold in the United States.”

Democrats charge that Republicans are resisting meaningful regulation.

At one of the House hearings, Rep. Jenn McClellan, D-Va., tied the problems to the war in Iran.

“Not until the Trump administration carelessly ensnared the United States in a reckless and costly war of choice with Iran pushing energy prices up even higher,” she said, “that we focused a hearing specifically addressing the alarming impact that data centers could have on energy affordability going forward.”

Proponents of ethanol, including lawmakers from corn-growing states, say year-round sales of a gasoline blend containing 15% of the biofuel would give consumers a less expensive alternative to fill their gas tanks, boost energy supplies and benefit agricultural interests.

So why hasn’t Congress allowed it?

There’s credible skepticism about those claims — and opposition from the strange bedfellows of environmental advocates and lawmakers from states where oil production and refining are major industries. As a result, expanding the availability of E15, as the blend is called, has become a congressional brawl with no predictable result.

The outcome of this debate, which will continue in June when Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess, largely depends on whether the push for year-round E15 use can get 60 U.S. Senate votes after the U.S. House this month passed legislation allowing it and the White House has signaled its support.

“I don’t know if it can get 60, to be honest with you,” Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, said in an interview.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune offered some hope. 

“We’re looking at ways to move it,” he told reporters. “We have people here who represent states that also have refineries, and that’s a factor in this conversation.”

Iran war boosts support

Federal regulations have restricted E15 from being sold from June 1 to Sept. 15 because of its effects on air quality.

But the turmoil triggered by the war in Iran has been an important boost to Congress’ efforts to pass year-round E15 legislation. 

AAA reported that the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline cost $4.55 a gallon Friday, up from $3.20 a year earlier.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued waivers this year to allow extended sales of the blend. E15, often sold at gas stations as Unleaded 88, will be widely available this summer as “the result of ongoing issues in the Middle East, among other events,” EPA said in a statement. 

‘Unique agreement’

One’s view of the issue “depends on which study you look at,” Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, said in an interview.

On one side is a historically influential coalition of agricultural, retail and petroleum interests.

“This legislation reflects a unique area of agreement across the fuel and agriculture supply chain,” organizations representing those industries said in a May 11 letter.

“While our industries do not always see eye to eye, we are united in the belief that these policy reforms provide needed certainty, preserve consumer choice, and support agriculture and energy economies alike,” they said.

The Renewable Fuels Association says E15 has been “fully approved for use in cars, pickups, vans and other light-duty vehicles” made after 2000.

Consumers can save 10 to 30 cents a gallon compared to 87-octane regular gasoline, industry members say. In Pennsylvania last weekend, Unleaded 88 was in some cases selling for 50 cents a gallon less.

The E15 critics

Many environmental groups maintain production of ethanol costs more than regular gasoline, and those costs are passed on to consumers not only at the pump, but in various agricultural products.

“Expanding ethanol sales is a shortsighted approach that ignores the environmental costs of industrial agriculture,” said Patrick Drupp, Sierra Club’s director of climate policy.

He said much of the corn used to produce E15 is grown in Midwestern states “already facing severe aquifer depletion and water shortages, and expanding ethanol production would only intensify the strain on their water supplies, farmland, and ecosystems.”

Eight environmental groups wrote an open letter May 8, concerned that “We should not commit additional land, resources, or taxpayer dollars to policies that undermine our climate goals, strain our natural systems, and increase costs for American families.”

The groups, which include the World Resources Institute and the Sierra Club, countered the notion that consumers would benefit.

“Production expenses for corn ethanol typically exceed those of gasoline, except during periods of unusually high oil prices—and even then, ethanol prices tend to rise in tandem with global energy markets,” they said.

That would mean even higher prices not only for fuel but for food, the organizations wrote.

One analysis that takes neither side is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which said in a May 12 analysis that because E15 needs separate or specialized tanks and pumps, “retailers wanting to sell E15 would confront the additional expense of installing new equipment.”

And, it said, “some refiners will incur additional costs as they adjust their refinery processes to produce the appropriate gasoline to be blended into E15.” 

What will Congress do?

The congressional coalitions for and against year-round E15 are as unusual as the outside groups supporting and opposing it.

The House’s  218-203 vote on May 13 saw 122 Republicans, 95 Democrats and one independent voting yes, while 113 Republicans and 90 Democrats voted no.

The yes coalition largely united rural lawmakers with more urban members who see the change as helping consumers.

“This debate is about much more than fuel,” Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an Iowa Republican, said. “Agriculture is hurting right now,” 

Joining her was New Jersey’s Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The bill “lowers prices for American drivers, supports farmers, and fosters investment in cleaner transportation fuel,” he said.

On the other side was Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas. 

“If we need to do something to support farmers, let’s have a direct conversation about it. Expanding E15 is just the wrong direction to go,” he said.

The same sort of party split looms in the Senate.

After the House vote, Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., who’s fought for the change for years, hailed the approval as “a major step toward securing stability and certainty for American producers and consumers – without any government mandates.” 

Thune, of South Dakota, has been sympathetic to year-round E15. 

At a news conference this week he called E15 “a way of creating additional demand for agricultural commodities in this country and creating additional supply when it comes to fuels.

“And when that happens, at least in my part of the country, that means that when you buy ethanol at the pump, it’s significantly lower in price,” he said.

He faces a powerful skeptic in the Senate: Majority Whip John Barrasso of Wyoming, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican..

“Congress is currently discussing new mandates – mandates that would force more and more ethanol into our fuels,” he said in a Senate floor speech the day after the House vote.

“I oppose the year-round E15 mandate,” he said. “I oppose it because it hurts small oil refineries and all of the people who work at them.”

Small refineries

There are about 30 small refineries across the country, usually in inland areas, and about half could face problems under the House bill.

Small refineries are those that produce less than 75,000 barrels of oil per day, compared to 300,000 barrels or more at larger facilities. 

The small refineries can petition for an EPA exemption from the annual renewable fuel obligations based on “disproportionate economic hardship.”

For 2025, there were 33 exemption petitions filed.  Approximately 17 of those facilities would be ineligible under the proposed legislation because they are owned by companies with more than one refinery. Instead of focusing on the single facility, the bill requires aggregation of all facilities together.

The House bill would allow a 75% exemption instead of the current full exemption. It could also reduce the number of small refineries currently eligible for an exemption by half. 

Most small refineries would find themselves operationally constrained without the ability to receive exemptions, as they would have to use much of their cash flow to comply with the annual mandates, said Peter Whitfield, partner at Sidley Austin, a law firm that represents the Small Refineries of America, in an interview

Many senators want assurances small refineries won’t be hurt. 

“I’m interested in the small refinery piece,” Capito said.

That concern is yet another reason, at the moment, Capito said she is doubtful the House bill could get the 60 votes needed in the Senate.

On paper it makes little sense. Ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, roughly 7,000 miles from the United States, is restricted and gasoline prices in this country soar? 

The strait is the major export route for oil produced by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Iran, according to the International Energy Agency. But since Feb. 28, when the Iran war began and the narrow passageway between Oman and Iran became a battleground, U.S. gasoline prices have soared — and the prices of consumer products and services are poised to jump as well. 

Most oil passing through the strait goes to Asian markets, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And due to greater domestic production, the U.S. is importing less crude oil from the Persian Gulf than it has in 40 years, EIA said in a March analysis.

So why are U.S. consumers paying so much more for gasoline? Globalization.

“Supply disruptions anywhere in the world can also affect prices everywhere in the world because we live in a global market,” explained Jeff Lenard, a vice president of the trade group National Association of Convenience Stores. “Oil and refined products like gasoline are traded on the commodities markets. Places with short supply are willing to pay more for product. That drives up the global price.”

Gas prices are tied to the global supply and demand for crude oil, meaning a disruption to the supply anywhere can have an effect everywhere, said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, which tracks gas prices.

“It’s because the price of oil is based on how much is available in total. Since oil from there is in short supply, the rest of the oil all around the world becomes more expensive,” De Haan said.

A gallon of regular gasoline Monday cost an average of $4.52, according to AAA up from $4.14 a month ago and $3.14 a year ago. Consumer prices overall were up 0.9% in March, and were averaging 3.3% higher over the past year.

Dissecting prices

While the Middle East oil disruption affects prices throughout the world, retail pump costs can vary dramatically from state to state across the U.S.

California’s average Monday was $6.16, the nation’s highest, AAA reported. Next were Washington, $5.76, and Hawaii, $5.65. The lowest averages were in Oklahoma, $3.95, Mississippi, $3.98 and Arkansas, $4.

The price of crude oil is the biggest part of the price consumers pay at the pump. EIA estimates that it makes up 51% of the retail cost. Distribution and marketing account for 11%, refining costs and profits 20% and federal and state taxes 18%.

That means dramatic changes in the price of crude have a huge impact on retail prices.

 

The National Association of Convenience Stores estimates that each dollar the price of oil increases could be 2.4 cents a gallon at the pump.

Brent crude, the world benchmark, was $70.50 the day before the U.S. and Israel struck Iran. Monday morning, it was more than $104.

The $34 a barrel increase since the war began would mean a 82-cent per gallon increase. 

Competition can keep prices from rising too much. No gas station wants to be an outlier projecting much higher prices than the one across the street.

Taxes and gasoline prices

There are other factors impacting gasoline prices, notably taxes that vary from state to state. 

The federal tax on gasoline has been 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993. President Donald Trump said Monday he supports freezing the tax, though he offered no timeline. A suspension would need congressional approval, and Republican leaders have in the past been reluctant to embrace any pause.

While the average state tax is 33.55 cents a gallon, it varies widely. California’s taxes and fees are estimated at 70.9 cents a gallon, the nation’s highest. The lowest tax and fee rate is in Alaska, 9 cents a gallon.

California’s costs are also boosted by other factors, including its tough environmental standards. The state requires a special blend of gasoline that aims to help air quality.

“This fuel burns cleaner but is more expensive to produce because it requires more processing steps and expensive blending components,” EIA said.

Another reason for the higher prices is California’s reliance on in-state refineries. It doesn’t have as much proximity as other states to interstate supply pipelines

Ripple effects

About 20% of the world’s oil passed through the strait prior to the war. But reopening the strait would be unlikely to suddenly bring prices down.

“In complex supply chains, a disruption in one critical link, even if only briefly, can cascade through the system, well beyond the initial event,” Pinar Keskinocak, professor at the H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Georgia Tech, said in an analysis. “As delays persist and compound, interconnected systems often take a long time to recover, rebalance, and return to normal.”

“I don’t expect there to be an open flooding of barrels just leaving the region,” said Jerome Dortmans, co-head of global oil and products trading in Goldman Sachs Global Banking & Markets, in an analysis.

And if the Iran crisis continues and the strait remains restricted, more price pain is probably ahead.

“A prolonged disruption of Middle East oil trade would create oil market conditions for which there is no historical precedent,” said a March report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

WASHINGTON — Get off the train at Union Station, walk outside and gasp at that iconic view of the Capitol dome in front of you. 

Cross the street and the first thing you run into is a construction site surrounding walled-off Columbus Circle. On the wall is a huge poster of President Donald Trump wearing a hard hat (and a coat and tie).

“Thank you, PRESIDENT TRUMP,” the sign says.

That’s just the start of what a tourist will encounter as they sightsee in the heart of the nation’s capital. Or these days, the nation’s capital as brought to you by Donald Trump.

The Trump reminders are all over. Walk the tourist walk from the Capitol down and around Pennsylvania Avenue, past the White House and on to the Lincoln Memorial and it’s clear who’s in charge.

Whether or not this is affecting tourism is unclear. Destination DC, a nonprofit organization that markets the area as a global tourist destination, doesn’t keep month-to-month data. It found in 2024, before the Trump boom, a record 27.2 million people visited the city.

“Tourists who are pro-Trump will be drawn to his eponymous sites. Those who oppose him will not. Most tourists will pay no attention to his projects but will enjoy all the historic and exciting venues and exhibits in Washington,” said Barbara Perry, professor in Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center 

She said Trump’s propensity to “destroy, rebuild, construct, and name numerous sites and institutions for himself is most unusual.”

Trump likenesses 

Trump detailed his plans in a March, 2025, executive order, “Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful.”

“Its highways, boulevards, and parks should be clean, well-kept, and pleasant,” he said of the nation’s capital. “Its monuments, museums, and buildings should reflect and inspire awe and appreciation for our Nation’s strength, greatness, and heritage. Our citizens deserve nothing less.” 

Previous incumbent presidents’ pictures were usually confined to 8-by-10 portraits hanging in post offices or deep inside other federal buildings, as they were careful not to splatter their names and likenesses so publicly.

“Typical presidents want to avoid looking arrogant by honoring themselves while in office or even after—except for their presidential libraries, starting with FDR. They usually feel humbled if a Navy ship, for example, is named for them while they are extant: Bush I and Ford come to mind,” Perry said of former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford.

Both served in the Navy and saw combat in the South Pacific.

Democrats are furious about the Trump makeover. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, calls Trump’s actions “narcissism” and is pushing the “Stop Executive Renaming for Vanity and Ego Act.”

“Donald Trump doesn’t get to slap his name on any public institution he chooses. We don’t have kings or dictators in America, and this legislation stops him or any future sitting president from creating monuments to glorify themselves,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

The bill is likely to go nowhere in the Republican-run Congress.

So for now, tourists can stroll around the Mall and see how Trump has tried to transform the nation’s capital.

Starting at the Capitol and heading south down Constitution Avenue until it splits off to Pennsylvania Avenue, here goes:

Albert Pike statue

Status: Installed at Judiciary Square, about four blocks from the Capitol.

Details: “The only public sculpture in DC to commemorate a Confederate general,” says the DC Historic Sites team website. Pike was a slave owner and a senior officer in the Confederate Army.

The memorial was “toppled and burned on Juneteenth of 2020, as protests continued across the country in response to the murder of George Floyd,” the website says. Floyd was a Black man killed by a white policeman in Minneapolis, sparking protests around the country.

Last year, the Trump administration had the Pike statue restored and placed at its present location. 

The action was part of an executive order Trump issued in March 2025. He ordered a review of memorials or statues that had been “removed or changed to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history, inappropriately minimize the value of certain historical events or figures, or include any other improper partisan ideology.” 

The order also affected the Smithsonian Institution, which Trump said “has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology.” 

Trump banners on federal buildings

Status: Huge banners with Trump’s face hang from the Judiciary and Labor Departments.

Details: “American Workers First” says the Labor banner, with Trump’s vastly enlarged face atop the saying. Another banner features President Theodore Roosevelt. 

The banners, which cover almost three stories of the building, are visible from both heavily-trafficked Constitution and Pennsylvania avenues.

About six blocks away, on Pennsylvania Avenue at the Justice Department — which a few years ago investigated Trump for possible crimes — there’s a new, three-story banner where he looks down at the street atop the saying “Make American Safe Again.”

When the Labor banner went up, then-Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer told Trump about it at a Cabinet meeting, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

“Mr. President, I invite you to see your big, beautiful face on a banner in front of the Department of Labor because you are really the transformational president of the American worker,” she told him.

Bonus sighting: As you walk along Pennsylvania Avenue, don’t miss another “Thank You, President Trump” banner hanging on a construction wall across from the National Gallery of Art near 4th Street.

White House ballroom

Status: Walk up Pennsylvania Avenue starting at the 1500 block and you’ll see the White House East Wing is gone. It’s a rubble-laden construction site now, where Trump is trying to build a 90,000 square foot ballroom with a military installation underneath. The project is to be privately funded, though Senate Republicans are seeking $1 billion for security in an immigration bill.

Details: The project is embroiled in a still-evolving legal battle. The April 25 assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where a gunman threatened the president and top officials, may be changing minds.

Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Montana,  last month introduced legislation to authorize the ballroom. “A President of any party should be able to host events in a secure area without attendees worrying about their safety. This is common sense. Let’s get it done,” he tweeted.

Last week, Justice sought to have the lawsuit dismissed. “This (ballroom) project will ensure that events like the horrific attack on Saturday night do not happen again,” it argued.

Reflecting Pool

Status: Keep walking toward Constitution Avenue. You’ll see the Reflecting Pool between the World War II Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial. Renovations are underway and expected to be completed by July 4. The pool is being cleaned and painted blue.

Details: The pool has often been criticized for being dirty and leaking. 

Trump’s effort is going a step farther than others who have launched renovation and cleaning projects. He said the project will cost $2 million, far less than other recent refurbishing efforts, according to his TruthSocial website.

“It was filthy dirty and it leaked like a sieve for many years,” Trump said in a video posted to the site. 

He’s having it painted “swimming pool blue,” a color that appalls many preservationists.  

Kennedy Center

Details: The city’s premier cultural center is about a 20-minute walk away. Perhaps no Trump change has provoked more outrage among his Washington critics than his renaming of the capital’s cultural center.

He said during a visit to the center in March 2025 that “it needs a lot of work,” adding it should have better seats and more “Broadway hits.”

The president overhauled its governance, creating a board that named him the center’s chairman, changed programming to suit his tastes, and announced the center would close this summer for two years for renovations.

Status: While the center’s board renamed the site the Trump-Kennedy Center, Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, an ex officio member of the board, has taken legal action in federal court seeking to stop the name change, saying only Congress can do so. The case is pending.

Monumental Arch

Details: Trump wants to build a 250 foot arch — taller than the nearby Lincoln Memorial and the tallest in the world — at the traffic circle at the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery on the Virginia side of the Potomac River. The circle leads to the Memorial Bridge across the Potomac, connecting to the Lincoln Memorial.

Status: The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, packed with Trump appointees, approved the arch’s concept design in April. 

The arch, the commission said in its approval letter, “would contribute positively to the honorific landscape of Washington, D.C., for many generations.” It requested more information for the next phase, including plans for better pedestrian access and sculptures.

Court battles await, notably from a group of Vietnam veterans and others. 

They say the arch would distort the clear view from the cemetery to the Lincoln Memorial, as well as disrupt the symbolism of the bridge, designed to join the North and South.

Off the usual paths

Go away from the main tourist routes and there’s yet more evidence of the Trump rebranding. The United States National Institute of Peace is now the Donald J. Trump National Institute of Peace. The change is meant “to reflect the greatest dealmaker in our nation’s history,” said a State Department tweet.

Then there’s what tourists won’t see.

“Visitors who take the garden tour of the White House this spring will miss the beautiful Rose Garden outside the West Wing and the Jackie Kennedy Garden outside the East Wing, of blessed memory,” said Perry. “Both gardens, planned by the Kennedys, plus the East Wing itself have been obliterated by the incumbent.” 

The Rose Garden, the White House says, “was turned into a patio with roses lining the perimeter, developing a space dedicated to hospitality and entertaining. Today, the Rose Garden is used to host many guests of the president for events and dinners.” 

East Potomac Golf Course

While the East Potomac Golf Course isn’t right on the main tourist route, it’s just off to the side on an island not far from the Jefferson Memorial, with a view of the Washington Monument. The Trump administration has reportedly wanted to close and then revamp the historic site. Preservationists and local folks are furious.

Reports say he wants to convert it to a championship golf course — one that some think will make it an exclusive club, instead of the current affordable public setup that’s popular with locals. NOTUS wrote that the National Park Service is scheduled to start landscaping.

The links currently have two nine-hole courses, an 18-hole par 72 course, miniature golf, a driving range and a restaurant. 

The D.C. Preservation League and two local residents Sunday asked a District Court judge to halt any Trump project. 

“Trump is taking a public park away from the American people while spending their hard-earned taxpayer dollars to build a private, elite club from which he’d personally profit,” Democracy Defenders Fund Executive Chair Norm Eisen said in a statement.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes on Monday did not stop the project, saying reports about the course’s overhaul did not provide enough evidence for her to act, but she warned that if she sees that certain renovations are underway she could reconsider.

National Mall Superintendent Kevin Griess said Monday there were no plans to begin renovation work but a safety assessment was underway, The Associated Press reported.

WASHINGTON — Tucked into President Donald Trump’s new budget request is a plan that could dramatically change — and, critics say, slash — how much money and help states provide to people needing jobs and training.

Trump’s latest budget proposes a federal “Make America Skilled Again’’ grant that would combine a dozen current programs and provide $3.4 billion in spending for certain employment and training programs, down from $4.65 billion anticipated this fiscal year.

The president’s plan would fund block, or general, grants to states, which could then tailor the spending to employment and training needs.

There’s no formula in the budget proposal detailing how or where the money would be distributed, other than a requirement that at least 10% be spent on an apprenticeship program and 3% on innovations. The secretary of the Department of Labor could also reserve up to 0.75% on “program accountability” and technical support.

Congressional Republicans are moving ahead with other ways to fund, and in some cases revamp, federal job programs, though they showed little interest in Trump’s MASA proposal that was also in his budget request last year.

The Trump plan

The MASA effort is another in a series of administration initiatives aimed at streamlining job training programs’ administrative costs and making them more responsive to changes in the workplace.

The Labor Department referred questions about the plan to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to questions.

At the National Skills Coalition, an advocacy organization for skills-based training, Megan Evans saw the MASA effort as a way of making deep cuts that ultimately hurt workers and employers, she said in an interview.

“The administration says it’s trying to streamline,” said Evans, the coalition’s senior government affairs manager. “But in reality it’s combining deep cuts with risky consolidations and rollbacks.”

The White House last year issued a detailed report and a video on its strategy, outlining how “workforce programs are fragmented across agencies, stifled by red tape, and too often misaligned with the skills employers need.”

These issues, it said, “pose particular risks as the United States advances toward a bold reindustrialization agenda and navigates the transformational impact of AI (artificial intelligence) on the workforce.”

In the budget released this month, the administration called the program “a key part of the administration’s strategy to fill the growing demand for skilled trades and other occupations,” along with some other programs, including the tax cuts enacted last year.

Changes in getting money and help

While MASA aims to reduce administrative costs, a long-sought goal of administrators across the country, popular programs would be consolidated under the block grant, including several with strong constituencies. 

Among them are programs for adult training and employment, youth training and employment, the Labor Department’s Re-integration of Ex-Offenders program, Native American programs and others.

The National Skills Coalition saw trouble in folding these programs into a single grant.

“These programs weren’t created in a vacuum,” it said in a blog post last year. “They each serve distinct populations.”

Merging them would be “making it harder for people to access training that fits their lives and needs,” the group said.

It also had doubts about whether block grants would in fact be more efficient.

“By combining multiple workforce programs into a single grant, it becomes significantly harder to track program outcomes, monitor equity and assess whether specific populations–such as veterans, youth, people with disabilities, or former incarcerated people–are being effectively served,” the coalition said.

Some state and local officials share the concern. 

“Washington state is already facing significant budget shortfalls, and this proposal would further widen that gap,” said Marisol Tapia Hopper, director of strategic partnerships & funding at the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County.

She said combining the programs into a block grant “functions as a reduction in workforce investment, applying a one-size-fits-all approach to a system that is already chronically underfunded.” 

The National Governors Association, a bipartisan group comprising all the nation’s governors, has taken no position on the proposal.

“Workforce training is a huge bipartisan priority for governors,” said Jack Porter, NGA program director for workforce development & economic policy.

“Federal support is critical to standing up effective workforce programs, but the federally funded workforce system as it stands now comes with a lot of red tape that shifts time and focus away from the goal, which is (to) provide workers with training,” he said.

Congressional reluctance

Congress has shown little enthusiasm for the administration’s consolidation.

Earlier this month, the Republican-led U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee proposed a comprehensive job training blueprint.

Among its ideas: providing funding for on-the-job learning and strengthening the system that holds state and local workforce boards responsible “for delivering positive outcomes for workers and job seekers.”

The bill would have adult education programs governed by the Labor Department. The aim would be to “connect adult education to apprenticeships, sector partnerships, and employer-led training especially as artificial intelligence reshapes skill demands.”

Included in the legislation, which a committee spokeswoman says is clearly “in line with the broad goals proposed in the president’s budget,” is a Make America Skilled Again pilot program.

It would permit states to apply to combine different workforce funding streams and then spend them on programs that best suit their needs.

The bill, said committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., in a statement, “modernizes a struggling and underutilized workforce development system, delivering reforms that strengthen participant outcomes and ensure greater accountability for taxpayer dollars.”

In the U.S. Senate, Republicans began pushing changes that will help people get access to current programs.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Republicans’ aim is to “increase Americans’ access to job opportunities by eliminating red tape, increasing flexibility, and modernizing the workforce system.”

The goal is to create one-stop centers where people can get information about jobs and training. The measure would “help Nebraskans find great jobs more efficiently,” said Sen. Pete Ricketts, a Nebraska Republican who co-sponsored the bill.

Spending bill season

At the moment, Democrats and Republicans appear deadlocked on how to proceed. The House Appropriations Committee plans to write labor spending legislation in June. The Senate has not announced a schedule. 

The partisan lines are forming.

The Trump labor budget “attacks workers and small businesses by undermining workforce development programs at the Department of Labor,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., top Democrat on the House workforce panel, in a statement.

Without the specific programs, he said, “many workers will struggle to provide for their families.”

Walberg sees a need for big change.

“The workforce is evolving rapidly, and legislation designed over a decade ago is no longer meeting today’s demands,” he said.