President asks $1B from taxpayers to secure his $400M privately funded ballroom.
Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only Learn more President Donald Trump’s latest pitch for using taxpayer dollars to secure his White House ballroom featured a militarized building—including a rooftop hardened against drone strikes and a “drone port” that could potentially house military drones.
The remarks came on May 19 as Trump gave reporters a personal tour of the ballroom project that has already involved the demolition of the White House mansion’s East Wing . The president spoke of installing a rooftop drone base “for unlimited numbers of drones” operated by the US military as a “drone port that would protect all of Washington,” according to Reuters . He also highlighted a ballroom roof made from “impenetrable steel” that would supposedly be “drone-proof” against potential drone strikes.
To pay for such measures, Trump has been urging Republican lawmakers in the US Congress to approve $1 billion in taxpayer funding to provide a wide variety of “ security adjustments and upgrades ” for his ballroom project. The taxpayer-backed security enhancements would be separate from the $400 million construction cost for the ballroom project that has been funded by private donors , including companies such as Amazon, Apple , Coinbase , Comcast, Google, HP Inc., Lockheed Martin, Meta, Micron Technology, Microsoft, Palantir, Ripple, and T-Mobile.
It’s unclear whether the anti-drone security measures and rooftop drone port will actually get incorporated into the ballroom building design. But Trump’s comments coincide with the US government’s new efforts to protect buildings and crowd events against potential threats posed by drones.
In January 2026, the Pentagon issued a “ Guide for Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure ” that recommends “hardening” security measures for physically blocking drone access to facilities or events. Such physical obstacles could include “concrete walls, enclosures or hardened roofs” designed to protect against drone surveillance or drone strikes, along with overhead netting and cables. The recommendations for more passive physical protection represent a “notable shift” in the US military’s stance toward anti-drone defenses, The War Zone reported.
Passive physical defenses are commonly used in the Russo-Ukrainian war, as both Ukraine and Russia have used a wide array of drones to attack critical infrastructure in cities and supply routes far behind the battlefield frontlines. Armored vehicles, trucks, and even Russian nuclear submarines have metal mesh “ cope cages ” installed to protect against small drone strikes. These are complemented by more active drone countermeasures, including interceptor missiles and drones designed to destroy drones or jam their navigation systems.
Similar physical defenses against drones have arisen during the 2026 Iran war and Strait of Hormuz crisis.
The War Zone reported that the United Arab Emirates has been building huge metal cope cages to protect fuel tanks and energy facilities against Iranian drone strikes —although Trump may not be so keen on installing such unsightly measures on top of his ballroom.
Drones are already generally prohibited from flying in the airspace over Washington, DC, under “national defense airspace” rules implemented after the terrorist attacks targeting New York City and DC on September 11, 2001. China has gone even further by banning drone sales in its capital city of Beijing.
But on May 6, the US Federal Aviation Administration published a proposed rule that would enable additional drone no-fly zones around “critical infrastructure” sites such as oil refineries and chemical facilities, bridges, dams, nuclear reactors, prisons, and even amusement parks. The rule would also allow companies to apply for no-fly zones around corporate headquarters or data centers .
Jeremy Hsu Tech Reporter Jeremy Hsu Tech Reporter Jeremy Hsu is a reporter exploring a wide range of topics across deep tech and AI. He has previously written for New Scientist, Scientific American, IEEE Spectrum, Wired, Undark Magazine and MIT Tech Review, among many other publications, about topics such as deepfakes, data centers, drones, battery tech, robotics, and GPS jamming. He also has a Master of Arts in Journalism from NYU, and a bachelor's degree from University of Pennsylvania in History and Sociology of Science, with a minor in English.
41 Comments
