In the polarized world of cable news, a fiery defense from one side is often just another log on the fire for the other. But this week, a segment on Fox News’ The Five didn’t just add to the fire—it poured gasoline on a nationwide sense of frustration. The controversy: President Donald Trump’s ambitious, and to many, shocking, $250 million White House ballroom project. The defender: host Kayleigh McEnany, whose attempt to spin the project as a patriotic gift to the nation has ignited a firestorm of public backlash.

The moment of televised combustion occurred during the show’s October 21 segment. As the panel discussed the massive construction, which has already seen excavators tearing into the historic East Wing, host Jessica Tarlov was offering a critical take. Before she could finish, McEnany cut in, her voice dripping with celebratory conviction.

“What you’re trying to say, Jessica,” she interjected, “is thank you, Trump, for saving all of this taxpayer dollars to create a large space where we can hold huge meetings.”

That single phrase—“thank you, Trump”—has come to encapsulate the profound disconnect between the White House’s narrative and the reality of a public grappling with economic anxiety. As critics immediately pointed out, the project’s $250 million price tag is being debated while a government shutdown looms, farmers are struggling, and the cost of living continues to climb for “ordinary Americans.”

McEnany, however, was prepared. She came armed with what she called “picture evidence,” launching into a historical defense of the president’s renovations. To counter critics who called the construction a “significant change to a historic building,” she presented a slideshow of past presidents’ own disruptive projects.

“1902, Theodore Roosevelt constructing the west wing,” she said, showing a photo of the work in progress. “Doesn’t look too great.”

She continued, rattling off her examples: “1934, FDR added a second-floor basement. Also doesn’t look too great.” She mentioned Harry S. Truman’s foundation change, Richard Nixon’s conversion of a pool into a press room, and Gerald Ford’s outdoor swimming pool.

“These look horrendous,” McEnany concluded, “but the end result was a beautiful White House. So, we can say thank you to Donald Trump for following in the footsteps of predecessors.”

The defense was clear: this is normal, this is historical, and this is good. She was so confident in the argument that she took it from the Fox News studio directly to her personal Instagram account, posting the “FACTS on President Trump’s East Wing construction.”

This move, however, opened a direct and unfiltered channel for the very public she was trying to convince. The response was not the “thank you” she had hoped for. It was immediate, personal, and visceral.

“Is it good to spend money on this when the government is in shutdown,” one furious commenter wrote, “when many American farmers are struggling and as the cost of living continues to increase for ordinary Americans? Does it help ordinary Americans?”

Another commenter dismissed McEnany’s entire historical argument as a distraction. “For such an iconic building there needs to be stronger recognition and respect to heritage,” the user wrote. “The current photos of the destruction of the East Wing will outlast the FOX News commentary which is superficial.”

This “superficial” critique cuts to the heart of the outrage. To McEnany’s critics, the problem isn’t just the construction; it’s the optics. The $250 million project, which renderings show as a gilded, Mar-a-Lago-style ballroom, is being slammed as a “tacky” and “gaudy” symbol of excess. On the rival daytime show The View, host Sunny Hostin—a vocal critic of the project—called it a “metaphor for what’s going on in our country,” accusing the president of “tearing down the people’s house.”

Her co-hosts echoed the sentiment, calling the project “a very bad look” while “people are losing their government jobs.” They, like the commenters on McEnany’s Instagram, see a “let them eat cake”-style disconnect between a political elite celebrating a new party room and a populace struggling to put food on the table.

But the backlash isn’t just coming from the public or rival media hosts. A far more serious and sober alarm is being sounded by architectural and historical experts. The Society of Architectural Historians (SAH) released a statement expressing its “great concerns” over the project.

The society points out that this is not just another renovation, as McEnany’s slideshow implies. This, they state, “will be the first major change to its exterior appearance in the last 83 years.” A change of this magnitude, the SAH argues, “should follow a rigorous and deliberate design and review process,” which critics say has been bypassed.

This expert critique completely dismantles McEnany’s historical ‘whataboutism.’ While Roosevelt and FDR did indeed build, and Truman famously gutted and rebuilt the White House interior (which was on the verge of “imminent collapse”), those projects were often a matter of necessity or were handled with a level of historical review that critics say is absent here. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has gone so far as to demand the administration “pause the demolition” and submit the plans to the “legally required public review process.”

The president’s defenders, including McEnany, have pointed out that the project is privately funded, with donations reportedly coming from major corporations and wealthy individuals. This, in their view, deflates the “taxpayer money” argument. But for the critics, this detail only makes the “optics” worse.

As The View‘s Sara Haines pointed out, “A ballroom is a symbol of excess and opulence… and this is a wealthy ballroom paid for by wealthy people for wealthy people to come and dance.” The question isn’t just “who is paying,” but “why this?” and “why now?”

McEnany’s on-air defense and subsequent Instagram post have become a case study in talking past the public. Her “FACTS” were met with a different set of facts: a struggling economy, a government in crisis, and a panel of experts warning that a “superficial” and “tacky” vanity project is permanently scarring one of the nation’s most sacred historical buildings.

The images of the East Wing’s “destruction,” as one commenter prophetically noted, are now the dominant story. McEnany wanted the public to see a “beautiful end result.” Instead, she has inadvertently highlighted the “horrendous” process, both of the construction itself and of a political bubble so thick it cannot see the difference between a historical necessity and a tone-deaf indulgence.