Deep

Trump’s White House ballroom, the controversy that keeps on giving, will of course be much more than just a ballroom and offices. This was always a given. Taking down an entire wing of the White House would be seen as the biggest opportunity in generations to install modernized hardened infrastructure at the most famous, most threatened, and highest-security house in America. Now, thanks to a remarkably detailed monologue and question-and-answer session from President Trump, we are learning a lot more about exactly what the ballroom’s security and military features will include, and just how deep the facility will go. The big takeaway here is that while it may be branded a ballroom, it’s really a fortress too — one with some very specialized and even somewhat puzzling capabilities.

The fact that the ballroom is as much of a military and security services installation as it is its stated function comes as the administration seeks a billion dollars in new funding from Congress for the U.S. Secret Service. Of that money, $220 million would go toward the facility, while the rest would go to other efforts to enhance security around the complex. The total cost of the ballroom project has previously been estimated to be $400 million. Trump had said in the past that private donors would pay for the construction — another controversial aspect of the project.

The last time a major bunker complex was installed below the White House grounds was roughly a decade and a half ago, under President Barack Obama. During that period, a large but secretive project saw the installation of an expansive underground facility, supposedly five stories deep, beneath the North Lawn. This facility was far larger and more elaborate than the President’s Emergency Operations Center — the PEOC — that was built below the now destroyed East Wing and dates back, at least in part, to around World War II. This facility was made famous by the tragic events of 9/11.

Based on lessons learned from the rickety response to that crisis, the PEOC was also progressively upgraded throughout the Bush Administration and beyond. You can read all about the existing bunker facilities at the White House in our prior report linked here.

Now that the East Wing is gone, the historic PEOC is likely gone as well, and a much grander labyrinth of underground spaces is being installed in its place. It appears that these deep underground areas will take up a substantial part of the entire floor plate of the massive ballroom building, so we are talking about a huge amount of square footage here, not just a new emergency bunker. Think a multi-story underground office building more so than a bomb shelter.

Trump, standing in front of the foundation of the ballroom while the racket of work crews filled the air, went into detail to reporters yesterday as to what is being built beneath the ballroom. Some of the features he mentioned were already known about, but not elaborated on, and some were new. They included:

• A military hospital
• Research facilities — it is unclear what these are, whether these are Secret Service and/or military facilities, or something else entirely
• Meeting rooms and rooms that go “hand-in-hand” for the military

Trump goes on to proclaim the ballroom is actually a “shield” to protect all these sensitive areas. Overall, Trump says the facility is “already down about six stories deep.” He later restated that the complex does indeed go six stories down. Trump also said during his presser, “the underneath is far more complex than the upper” when discussing the overall structure.

Trump continued to detail some of the defensive features of the ballroom facility:

• Drone proofing, stating “if a drone hits it, it bounces off, it won’t have any impact”
• Missile proofing
• “Great sniper capacity” (USSS counter-sniper teams are an omnipresent fixture atop the White House)
• The roof is developed “for the military” with a 360-degree view of Washington, D.C., due to its height.

Trump calls construction of new White House ballroom ‘a gift’

Now we get into the really interesting and a bit peculiar part. Trump went on to say that the roof will have a “massive drone capacity.” He later adds that “it’s also meant as a drone port, so it protects all of Washington.” The president also stated that “we use it as a drone port. We can have unlimited drones up there, and drones are what’s happening right now.”

In another quote, Trump, talking about the roof again, said “on top of the roof, we’re going to have the greatest drone empire you’ve ever seen that’s going to protect Washington.” He also said systems from below the new ballroom facility will be put on the roof “for drone and missile capacity.”

So what is he actually talking about here?

First off, it is abundantly clear that this will be the most hardened overall structure on the White House grounds by a huge margin. It will feature passive defenses against many forms of attack. From the windows to the walls, the facility will be hardened to a level not seen on legacy structures on the property.

It will also have active defenses. Clearly, the drone issue is a massive one and has been for many years. This structure will serve as a secure place to do daily business if needed. Based on Trump’s comments, it will also act as a critical active defense node with its roof hosting air defenses, and apparently ones that are capable of at least a limited degree of area defense, not just highly-localized point defense. This is where drones could come into play. Drone interceptors (drones that intercept other drones) are well suited for the unique challenges of defending the White House and the Mall area as a whole, where collateral damage is a huge concern. Some of these systems use warheads, while others do not, physically smashing into their targets or blasting them with electrical pulses and other non-traditional effects instead. Drone interceptor capabilities are expanding rapidly now, equipping forward bases and warships. They proved critical in defending U.S. interests against Iranian attacks during the recent war. In Ukraine, they have proven indispensable in countering waves of Russian Shaheds.

Ukraine’s drone defense tech reshapes combat as warfare evolves

Raytheon Missiles & Defense proves counter-UAS effectiveness against enemy drones

So, it sounds like the roof of the ballroom is going to be a major air defense installation, at least for counter-drone applications, for the area, and interceptor drones will likely provide at least part of this capability, along with electronic warfare and possibly directed energy weapons. Surface-to-air missiles could find a home there, as well. There is a known rooftop FIM-92 Stinger-firing Avenger missile turret near the White House for this purpose today, which was installed not long after 9/11, but this capability could be expanded, at least in a crisis or during special occasions, to the rooftop of the new structure. It could even host longer-range systems. Currently, the capital area features the only permanent surface-to-air missile network in the United States, featuring the NASAMS system for medium-range defense, with launchers arrayed around the region.

Still, firing off a rocket packed with a high-explosive blast-fragmentation warhead low over the capital is a far more dangerous action than emerging alternatives, as mentioned above, at least for countering drones. Regardless, Trump alluded to systems being able to be stored in the bottom of the ballroom facility that can be moved up to the roof for protection. It’s unclear if some sort of lift system would allow this to occur more seamlessly on demand, if indeed his description was accurate, but being able to configure air defenses on the rooftop based on the threat at any given time would be highly advantageous.

Whether the president thinks drones will be used in the future to transport cargo and individuals to and from the White House grounds, using the roof of the new facility, isn’t clear, but it sounds like that’s at least part of the vision. Not long after the East Wing was torn down, we inquired with the White House if the ballroom’s roof would work as a helipad for Marine One. This inquiry was spurred by the chronic landing area issues with the new VH-92A Marine One helicopters. We never got a response, but the news hit this week that the White House is now looking to build a helicopter landing pad due to this issue. It isn’t perfectly clear if the ballroom could serve in this role or at least be used as an alternative landing site.

Finally, it’s clear that the underground portion of the ballroom will include a multitude of command and control, training, computers, and communications support areas, and much more for military operations and defense of the White House itself. Much of this also fits into the continuity of government realm, a key mission for the USSS and the White House Military Office. Considering the size of the new facility, it will likely also have a lot of room for future expansion.

That being said, it is worth noting that while a modern underground facility like this may be more secure, it cannot even come close to protecting against a direct nuclear attack. The requirements for such an installation far exceed anything we are seeing with the ballroom (or anywhere else really).

Trump added in his presser yesterday that with the ballroom will come “great military capacity, we are building it in conjunction with the United States military.” Exactly how the marriage of the military’s and the Secret Service’s wants and building a huge building for galas came together is unclear. The timeline of events that gave birth to the ballroom-fortress concept seems fascinating in its own right.

With that in mind, and considering this was all in the blueprints for the highly complex structure being built now, the military and the USSS were clearly deeply involved in its design from early on, which makes it puzzling as to why the White House is just asking for funding for those security features now.

Regardless, while this new addition to the White House grounds may be referred to as a ballroom, it is one built atop a sprawling military installation and cocooned within a hardened armor shell that has many other roles than its stated purpose.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

Like the milieu in which they’re set, prison movies can be terribly constricting. Often focusing on well-worn themes of masculinity, regret and redemption, they feature (and sometimes indulge) rough-hewn portrayals of tortured characters suffering through physical and emotional tumult. Inherently compelling but also a shade predictable, the genre promises a tantalizing glimpse at a terrifyingly macho world — one that most of us are fortunate not to know firsthand.

Cal McMau’s feature directorial debut hardly reinvents the formula, but it does remind audiences what remains so sturdy about the premise of an ordinary man trying to stay alive behind bars. And thanks to the latest impressive turn from rising star David Jonsson, “Wasteman” even finds a few new notes to play within a familiar stark melody.

Jonsson is Taylor, who has been serving 13 years in a U.K. prison for a drug deal that went tragically wrong, leading to an accidental death. Soft-spoken and overly accommodating, the young man mostly wants to avoid trouble, allowing himself to be bullied by cell-block thugs Paul (Alex Hassell) and Gaz (Corin Silva) while offering to cut their hair in exchange for the pills that fuel his addiction. Taylor has learned to go along to get along, existing in a zombie-like state from the perpetual high he chases.

But Taylor’s stasis is interrupted by the news that he may be granted early parole. (The overstuffed U.K. penal system needs to shed nonviolent prisoners to make room for dangerous offenders.) Longing to reconnect with his estranged teenage son Adam (Cole Martin), Taylor can see the light at the end of the tunnel — until the arrival of Dee, his new cellmate.

Played by a snarling, coiled Tom Blyth, Dee swaggers whereas Taylor shrinks. Seeing his new home as his kingdom, Dee quickly becomes the prison’s chief supplier of whatever you need — sneakers, candy, drugs — while ferociously asserting his dominance. (Early on, Dee slashes a fellow inmate’s face, recognizing him as someone who once ran with a rival crew.) Taylor adapts to the volatile situation as he always has, serving as the unthreatening beta, eventually earning Dee’s trust and friendship. Soon, Dee takes an interest in Taylor, ordering his lackeys on the outside to give Adam gifts that they claim are from his dad.

“Wasteman” introduces this odd-couple scenario and then waits for their fragile coexistence to rupture. Accustomed to being the prison’s top dogs, Paul and Gaz don’t take kindly to Dee invading their turf, resulting in an escalation of tension that puts Taylor’s parole at risk. But if much of “Wasteman” follows an expected trajectory, the film’s conception of Taylor proves thornier than anticipated.

Although probably best known for the HBO series “Industry,” Jonsson has demonstrated a dazzling range over a short period of time, including acing romantic dramas (“Rye Lane”) and dystopian thrillers (“The Long Walk”). But what unites his diverse roles is the sense of a sensitive, intelligent actor who constantly makes us wonder what he’s thinking.

Jonsson’s silences always seem to say so much and in “Wasteman” he capitalizes on his reserved demeanor and smaller frame to create a character who is much less frightening than those around him. Unlike Dee, he’s no hardened criminal, merely a guy who made one stupid mistake to financially support his child, and “Wasteman” initially encourages viewers to sympathize with this delicate soul who’s been thrown to the wolves.

Gradually, though, Jonsson complicates our feelings about Taylor. Equally desperate to be freed and to keep getting high — essentially escaping one prison while remaining in another — he slowly reveals himself to have little in the way of principles or ethics. When Paul and Gaz confront Dee, Taylor’s response is so cowardly that it’s pathetic, suggesting a spinelessness that bedeviled him long before he wound up in jail. The film presents Taylor as a kindly spirit, which turns out to be little more than calculated self-preservation.

Within the confines of a fairly conventional prison drama, McMau dissects an anonymous nobody who discovers that, both in prison and in life, there are consequences for not taking sides. Despite Dee’s savagery, Blyth portrays Taylor’s cellmate as loyal and honest — someone who believes in a personal code of conduct. The movie’s bitterest irony is that, of the two men, it’s ultimately Dee who may be more honorable.

McMau’s attempts to amplify the story’s grim authenticity occasionally fall flat. (Inspired by footage shot by actual inmates with contraband cellphones, the first-time director incorporates stagey inserts meant to re-create these intimate, graphic images.) He’s on firmer footing exploring his two leads as they square off inside this smoldering crucible. Like Jonsson, Blyth hints at a whole universe inside his character simply by the way he quietly listens and observes. As Taylor’s parole looms, the stakes grow. By the time “Wasteman” reaches its ambiguous finale, our loyalties are far from clear-cut.

The election victory of Hungary’s Tisza party on April 12 marks the end of the 16 year rule of Viktor Orbán, a figure who has long defined Hungary’s contentious relationship with the European Union. His tenure reshaped Hungary’s domestic institutions and repeatedly placed the country at odds with EU norms, laws, and political consensus.

The incoming leadership under Péter Magyar now inherits not only a domestic mandate for change but also the complex task of rebuilding trust with the EU after years of institutional confrontation.

A fractured relationship with Brussels

Under Orbán, Hungary frequently clashed with EU institutions over rule of law, judicial independence, media freedom, and migration policy. One of the most controversial measures was the lowering of the retirement age for judges and prosecutors, which critics argued enabled political reshaping of the judiciary.

Tensions escalated further after 2022, when Hungary’s stance on sanctions against Russia and support for Ukraine created repeated deadlocks within EU decision making processes.

Financial pressure also became a key tool of EU leverage. The European Commission suspended billions of euros in funding to Hungary, citing concerns over corruption and democratic backsliding, deepening the political divide.

Allegations and escalating mistrust

Relations deteriorated further following leaked reports alleging that senior Hungarian officials coordinated with Russian counterparts during sensitive EU discussions. These claims intensified accusations within parts of the EU that Hungary had undermined collective decision making during a period of heightened geopolitical tension.

While Budapest has rejected many of these allegations, they contributed to a climate of mistrust that severely weakened Hungary’s position within the bloc.

A new government with a reform mandate

The Tisza party’s victory signals a clear domestic demand for change, particularly around governance and corruption. The new administration has strong incentives to restore relations with the EU, not least because of the approximately 17 billion euros in suspended funding that could be unlocked if conditions are met.

EU leaders, however, have made it clear that financial normalization will depend on compliance with a wide set of governance and legal reforms. These include anti corruption measures, judicial independence safeguards, and adjustments to policies affecting migration and minority rights.

Structural constraints on reform

Despite political momentum for rapprochement, significant obstacles remain. Hungarian society remains more socially conservative and more sceptical of the EU than many of its Western counterparts. This limits the political space for rapid liberal reforms, particularly in sensitive areas such as LGBTQ+ rights and asylum policy.

Economic pressures further complicate the situation. The new government will inherit fiscal strain linked to years of disputed EU funding and broader geopolitical uncertainty, including the economic effects of the ongoing war involving Iran, which has disrupted global energy markets and increased financial volatility.

Ukraine and the Russia question

One of the most sensitive areas in Hungary’s future EU relationship will be its position on Ukraine. While Péter Magyar has signaled a willingness to improve relations with Ukraine and align more closely with NATO and EU policy, key ambiguities remain.

His stated openness to continuing Russian energy imports for the foreseeable future, combined with proposals for a referendum on Ukrainian EU membership, suggests that strategic continuity with aspects of the previous government may persist.

Given public scepticism toward Ukraine within Hungary, any referendum could significantly complicate EU enlargement plans.

Analysis

The end of Orbán’s long tenure represents a clear political inflection point in EU Hungary relations. It removes a persistent source of institutional confrontation and opens the possibility of renewed cooperation with Brussels.

However, the assumption that relations will automatically normalize is overly optimistic. The structural sources of tension between Hungary and the EU extend beyond one leader. They include divergent political cultures, competing interpretations of sovereignty, and deep disagreements over migration, rule of law, and foreign policy alignment.

The new government’s dependence on EU funds gives Brussels significant leverage, but also creates domestic political risk if reforms are perceived as externally imposed. This creates a delicate balancing act between compliance and legitimacy.

On foreign policy, Hungary’s position on Russia and Ukraine will remain the most consequential test. Even partial continuity with previous policies could reintroduce friction at a time when EU unity is under pressure from multiple geopolitical crises.

Ultimately, Orbán’s departure may mark the end of one chapter, but it does not resolve the underlying tensions that have defined Hungary’s relationship with the European project. The reset, while possible, will be gradual, conditional, and politically contested.

With information from Reuters.