President Trump took to Truth Social on Monday to torch the Gateway tunnel project and swat down media reports that he had proposed renaming Penn Station after himself as a condition for unfreezing federal funds.
The post was characteristically blunt. Trump called the massive infrastructure project a "boondoggle" and warned it would bleed billions beyond its already staggering price tag. He also flatly denied originating the idea of rechristening the station "Trump Station," pinning that notion on "certain politicians and construction union heads" and labeling the coverage "FAKE NEWS."
"I am opposed to the future boondoggle known as 'Gateway,' in New York/New Jersey, because it will cost many BILLIONS OF DOLLARS more than projected or anticipated."
According to The Hill, earlier this month, multiple media outlets reported that Trump had offered to restore $16 billion in frozen federal funding for the Gateway tunnel if Democrats agreed to rename Penn Station and Dulles International Airport after him. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reportedly rejected the offer, claiming he lacked the authority to make such a change.
Trump's Monday post tells a different story.
The Gateway tunnel project, which would build new rail tunnels under the Hudson River connecting New Jersey and New York City, has long been a magnet for cost concerns. Trump froze the $16 billion earmarked for the project back in October, and his latest statement suggests that freeze isn't thawing anytime soon.
"[The project] will be financially catastrophic for the region, unless hard work and proper planning is done, NOW, to avoid insurmountable future cost overruns."
This is the kind of language that terrifies the infrastructure-industrial complex. When a president calls your project "financially catastrophic" in all caps, the money isn't coming back without a serious rethink. And Trump's insistence on "proper planning" before another dollar moves is the opposite of how Washington typically handles megaprojects, where the pattern is to approve first, audit never, and let taxpayers absorb the wreckage.
Sixteen billion dollars is already an extraordinary sum. Trump's contention that the real number will climb far higher is not exactly a wild bet for anyone who has watched federal infrastructure projects operate. Cost overruns aren't a bug of these endeavors. They're a feature. The politicians who champion them get their ribbon-cutting photo ops long before the bills come due, and by the time the overruns surface, they've moved on to the next campaign.
The media narrative was irresistible: Trump holds critical infrastructure hostage unless New York names a train station after him. It writes itself. It's also, according to Trump, wrong.
"Also, the naming of PENN Station (I LOVE Pennsylvania, but it is a direct competitor to New York, and 'eating New York's lunch!') to TRUMP STATION, was brought up by certain politicians and construction union heads, not me – IT IS JUST MORE FAKE NEWS! NO COST OVERRUNS!!!"
The identity of those "certain politicians and construction union heads" remains unknown. No outlet reporting the original story has named the figures who allegedly raised the idea, and no one has stepped forward to claim credit or issue a denial. That silence is worth noting. If powerful people in the room floated a Trump Station proposal to get $16 billion flowing again, their anonymity is convenient. They get to test the waters without ever getting wet.
Meanwhile, Schumer's reported response that he "does not have the authority" to rename Penn Station is a curious piece of Washington choreography. It's technically true that a Senate minority leader can't unilaterally rename a New York landmark. But it also sidesteps the more interesting question: would Democrats trade a name on a building for $16 billion in infrastructure money their constituents desperately want? Schumer chose to hide behind a procedural technicality rather than engage the substance. That tells you something about how uncomfortable the question made him.
There's a reason the "Trump wants a station named after him" angle dominated coverage while the "president questions whether a $16 billion project is a responsible use of taxpayer money" angle did not. One story feeds the narcissist narrative the press prefers. The other requires engaging with genuinely difficult questions about federal spending, project management, and whether New York and New Jersey's political leaders have done the work to justify this level of investment.
The press chose the easy story. They almost always do.
Notice what didn't get scrutinized: the cost projections themselves. Whether the Gateway project has adequate oversight mechanisms. Whether the region's political leadership has addressed the planning failures that Trump identified. Those questions don't generate clicks the way "Trump Station" does, but they matter far more to the commuters and taxpayers who would actually live with the consequences.
The $16 billion remains frozen. Trump has now made his opposition to Gateway public and emphatic, which makes any near-term restoration of funds unlikely without significant concessions on cost controls and project management. Democrats who want the money will need to come to the table with something more substantive than procedural objections and leaked negotiation details.
The naming saga, real or invented, is a sideshow. The real fight is over whether Washington will continue rubber-stamping infrastructure megaprojects that routinely double or triple their budgets, or whether someone will finally demand accountability before the concrete is poured.
Trump just made clear which side of that question he's on. The politicians and union bosses who want the money will have to answer for the math.