In recent discussions surrounding national security and infrastructure, a theory has emerged regarding a significant construction project at the White House. If this theory holds true, it suggests that the United States is mirroring the hyper-militarized approach of Israel, which has been shaped by a history of conflict and animosity. This hints at an increasing commitment to a more aggressive posture.
Historically, the U.S. has maintained command bunkers, some more robust than the current project under scrutiny. For example, the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia offers tours of its Cold War era nuclear-hardened command center, which included facilities for Congress members and a documented inventory of medications for high-ranking officials expected to seek refuge there. To my knowledge, the existence of this nuclear hideout wasn’t public knowledge at the time.
Neuburger correctly observes in the context of the Trump administration that the proposed data center may serve as a safeguard against internal threats. However, a traditional nuclear bunker could fulfill that security objective just as effectively.
Since the start of this political season, numerous developments have unfolded. Let’s delve into one particular aspect: Donald Trump’s purported “ballroom.”
But is it merely a ballroom? I believe the answer is no.
The Drey Dossier
The Drey Dossier, an investigative journalism initiative led by Audrey Henson (often referred to as “Drey”), has garnered attention. Though this is my first encounter with Henson, her YouTube channel boasts 66,000 subscribers, her TikTok has approximately 135,000 followers, and her Substack platform has 59,000 subscribers. To gain insight into her background, check her LinkedIn profile.
While I can’t comment on the entirety of her work, Henson’s analysis regarding the ballroom appears sound and substantial.
The White House ‘Ballroom’ That Isn’t
For comprehensive details, I recommend watching the video provided below or, even better, reading the accompanying article on her Substack page.
Concerning the ballroom project, I encourage you to explore the specifics; there are numerous intriguing points:
- from contractor — Clark Construction, known for handling classified data centers
- to architect — Shalom Baranes, responsible for the Pentagon’s post-9/11 fortification project
- to upgrades to the power grid — reports indicate Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) is replacing aging power feeders and significantly increasing power capacity by five hundred percent
- to water infrastructure — an increase of $300 million in spending by DC Water, in addition to PEPCO’s request for extensive modifications to water lines near the East Wing
- to funding sources — notable companies, including Carrier, which may be providing its innovative Carrier Quantum Leap product for data center thermal management
- to caissons — structures commonly employed in underground construction
- and even military design contributions as mentioned by Trump, citing national security as a priority.
For further details, please refer to Henson’s insightful piece. It draws a fascinating comparison to Jerusalem’s data center, which has a similar size and budget to the White House “ballroom” — approximately 90,000 sq. ft. with a cost exceeding $300 million, located 160 feet underground. It will be interesting to see how deep Trump digs beneath his future dance floor.
The What and the Why
This discussion inevitably leads us to larger questions regarding the nature and intent behind this construction project. Henson effectively addresses what is being developed, but the rationale remains open to speculation.
To clarify what this project entails, I’ll quote from the conclusion of Henson’s video (emphasis added):
So, what does all of this signify? To understand the scenario, we should revisit the underground data centers in Jerusalem. The reasoning behind their construction might shed light on what Trump is pursuing here, allegedly. Israel built these facilities for Project Nimbus, which function as the government’s cloud infrastructure. We have seen the consequences of such infrastructure in action — the AI systems employed in Gaza, surveillance frameworks, military operational decision-making, all rely on these underground data centers.
The implications are vast: we’re talking about AI systems that could potentially manage military operations, intelligence gathering, and critical infrastructure. These facilities are situated deep underground to ensure functionality during power outages, cyberattacks, and even wartime scenarios.
The reasoning is clear: the entire nation cannot function dependably without protecting its central command. That’s how data sovereignty manifests. That is continuity of governance. And this is the future of AI-driven military infrastructure.
Moreover, consider Project Stargate, announced on January 21, 2025, marking Trump’s first day in office. Larry Ellison discussed a $500 billion AI infrastructure aimed at revolutionizing government efficacy. However, all these advanced concepts necessitate a secure operational environment.
Thus, it logically follows that such infrastructure belongs within the White House. Operations tied to the Executive Office of the President must be classified and protected, with the President holding direct access. Furthermore, the East Wing is positioned directly above the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), which is staffed continuously. By demolishing the East Wing, every obstruction to their access was removed, allowing for potential expansion or modernization.
And since it’s located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, executive privilege covers all activities related to this project. The President would dictate what information is released and what remains hidden. This could potentially facilitate an AI-operated government, sheltered from Congressional oversight.
While it’s likely a grand ballroom will be constructed atop all of this, serving to host state dinners and photo ops with world leaders, we are not to be misled; the ballroom serves merely as a facade for a much larger undertaking.
Thus, it appears that the construction may in fact be an AI-driven data center, capable of orchestrating national operations from a fortified bunker beneath the White House.
Protection From Whom?
This leads us to ponder the “why.” Why maintain such secrecy?
If Henson’s claims regarding the government’s plans are accurate, should that not be public information? Given the nature of international relations, adversaries like China are likely already aware of these developments. Additionally, a responsible military — as Trump claims is involved — should consider this type of construction part of its mandate.
So why this veil of secrecy from the American public, if such plans are indeed underway? Is this fear and aggression manifesting as paranoia? Or is it indicative of something more sinister?
Consider the ramifications of a vast, Palantir-driven data center linked to every aspect of our infrastructure and personal data. What would the objectives of such a facility be? What strategies are in place for either external threats or the internal population—potentially a public kept in surveillance and suppression?
“That’s what data sovereignty looks like,” Henson argues. “That’s continuity of government. And that’s what AI warfare infrastructure truly embodies.”
The concept of continuity in governance prompts further inquiry. If external threats exist solely, why the necessity for secrecy?
While I do not possess the answers, the questions themselves warrant serious consideration.
