Listen to the article
Construction Firm Did Not Call Out Trump Over Unpaid White House Demolition Work
Contrary to widely circulated claims on social media, ACECO, the demolition company involved in the White House East Wing project, has not publicly complained about unpaid invoices from President Donald Trump’s administration, an investigation reveals.
The rumor began spreading in early November 2025 when several social media platforms including Threads, X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and Bluesky shared posts claiming that “ACECO Engineering & Construction, the firm in charge of the White House East Wing demolition, has called out President Donald Trump over unpaid balances for their services in demolishing the historic building.”
These claims appear to have originated from an article published by USAmidia, a website known for publishing fabricated or embellished news. The article included an alleged statement from an unnamed ACECO spokesperson claiming the company had “carried out our work in good faith, under a federal contract approved by the Trump administration. However, despite repeated invoices, several invoices remain unpaid.”
Fact-checking efforts revealed multiple inconsistencies in the report. Comprehensive searches across major search engines produced no evidence of any reputable news outlets reporting on such allegations. Furthermore, the USAmidia article confused two entirely different companies: ACECO, the Maryland-based demolition firm actually involved in the East Wing project, and ACECO Engineering & Construction, a separate company operating in the United Arab Emirates.
Media Bias/Fact Check, a website that analyzes news sources for credibility, describes USAmidia as “a clickbait entertainment site that publishes sensationalist and often false news with no transparency and no editorial accountability.” The purported author of the article, Melinda Holbert, has no discoverable presence on major social media platforms or in professional journalism circles.
The East Wing demolition itself has been a source of controversy since it began in late October. The project is part of President Trump’s plan to build a ballroom at the White House, which he initially promised “won’t interfere with the current building.” However, contractors ended up demolishing the entire East Wing, sparking public outcry and criticism.
According to Getty Images and other reputable sources, the Maryland-based ACECO is indeed involved in the demolition project. Local Washington, D.C. news has reported that the company has faced significant public backlash for its participation in tearing down the historic structure, with numerous negative reviews appearing online.
The controversial demolition has drawn attention from lawmakers as well. Senator Ed Markey has questioned ACECO about health and safety precautions during the demolition process, highlighting the high-profile nature of the project.
President Trump has stated that the planned ballroom will be funded by private donors rather than taxpayers, though specific details about the financing arrangements have not been fully disclosed.
This is not the first false claim to circulate regarding the East Wing project. Previous debunked rumors include allegations that Trump was building a new presidential bunker beneath the planned ballroom, and that historic preservation laws would require the president to rebuild the demolished East Wing.
At the time of reporting, ACECO’s website was listed as “under construction,” and the company has not publicly addressed the false claims about unpaid invoices. Attempts to reach both ACECO and USAmidia for comment have not received responses.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
Huh, this is an interesting allegation, but I’m not convinced by the lack of direct sourcing. Unless ACECO comes forward with their side of the story, I’m hesitant to lend too much credence to these social media rumors.
Good point. Without hearing directly from the company involved, it’s unwise to jump to conclusions. There are too many unsubstantiated claims floating around these days to take this at face value.
Interesting if true, but the lack of credible sources and details raises some red flags. I’d want to see clear evidence and statements from ACECO before believing these claims about unpaid White House bills.
Agreed, transparency and verifiable information is key here. Unsubstantiated rumors often spread quickly online, so it’s wise to approach this cautiously until the facts are established.
This is certainly a provocative story, but the details seem a bit murky. I’d want to see a clear, unambiguous statement from ACECO before accepting the claim that they confronted Trump over unpaid bills. Rumors can spread quickly online.
Absolutely. Verifying the facts is crucial, especially when it comes to sensitive political matters. Without that direct confirmation from the company, I’m going to remain skeptical of these allegations.
If the construction company did indeed face unpaid bills, that would certainly be concerning. However, the lack of verifiable evidence is troubling. I’ll reserve judgment until there’s a clear, direct statement from ACECO on the matter.
Agreed. Without concrete proof, these claims feel more like rumor-mongering than legitimate reporting. We should demand a higher standard of evidence, especially on sensitive political issues.
Hmm, this sounds like a classic case of misinformation making the rounds. Without direct confirmation from the construction company, I’m skeptical of these allegations against the previous administration. We should be careful about jumping to conclusions.
Absolutely. It’s important to fact-check claims, especially those involving political figures, before sharing or lending them credibility. The details here seem too vague to draw any firm conclusions.
While the idea of a construction firm calling out the former president over unpaid bills is intriguing, I need to see solid documentation before accepting this as fact. Unsubstantiated social media posts are not a reliable source in my view.
Exactly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until the construction company itself provides a clear, verifiable statement, I’m inclined to treat this as unconfirmed speculation.