“When extravagant White House renovations helped end a presidency,” written by Mark Schmeller, associate professor of history, was published in The Hill. Following is an excerpt:

And last, but certainly not least, is Trump’s proposed 90,000-square-foot ballroom to be built off the East Wing (the White House is 55,000 square feet) and designed to suit the president’s penchant for “Dictator Chic.” When asked why this is necessary, Trump explained that “there’s never been a president that was good at ballrooms.” This is probably true.

The [Trump] administration offers vague assurances that unnamed “private donors” will cover the estimated $200 million cost for the ballroom. Regardless of who picks up the tab (or pays the bribe), the gauche opulence of the White House renovations do not easily align with the administration’s vows to combat wasteful government spending, or its admonitions to Americans to tighten their belts should Trump’s tariffs raise their cost of living. Your children can get by with fewer toys, and this ballroom is going to be spectacular.

But does any of this matter? Has any president ever paid a political price for extravagant White House renovations? I can think of one: Martin Van Buren.

The eighth president lost his bid for reelection in 1840 amidst accusations that he lived in “regal splendor” in the “President’s Palace.” Those accusations, which had little basis in fact, can be traced back to a since forgotten congressional speech then known and celebrated as the “Gold Spoon Oration.”