There are a number of issues raised by Trump’s demolishing the hundred-year-old East Wing of the White House and building the world’s largest catering hall, to be known as the Trump Ballroom, whether or not the Trump name is chiseled into the limestone in very large letters. But the purported virtue, that it won’t be built with taxpayer dollars but with donations, raises an issue itself.

Why, one might wonder, would anyone want to donate a few mil to the cause? Because they love America? Perhaps. Because they love Trump? Maybe. Or it could be that they want to buy Trumps favor or buy off Trump’s anger. We’ve already seen corporations settle frivolous claims by Trump personally that put huge sums in Trump’s pocket when the corps need government approval for their deals. We’ve already seen Trump demand retribution against his “enemies,” to those who refuse to bend to his will. Trump has hardly been shy about favoring those who buy his love and using the power of government to damage those who make him angry or sad.

But when it comes to donating to the ballroom, there is a list of names that have been disclosed, and a list of names that have remained concealed, like the Epstein files. Why?

President Trump’s aides have promised transparency about the funding of a new ballroom, but the White House withheld the identities of several donors to the project, including some with business before the administration, The New York Times found.

A list released last month by the White House of more than three dozen donors omitted donation amounts, as well as the names of several individuals and companies that collectively have billions of dollars riding on the outcome of administration policy decisions.

The rush of major business interests to fund a pet project of Mr. Trump’s has reinforced a perception in corporate America that the ballroom is a way to curry favor with, or seek protection from, a president who has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to use the levers of government to help allies and punish foes.

When the White House provided a list of names of donors to Trump’s greater glory, one might have been lulled into complacency by thinking, “Well, the usual suspects throwing money at Trump to buy his love and stay on his good side, at least until he needs more money.” But when it became known that there was another list, a secret list, the juxtaposition raised one of Trump’s least favorite words: corruption.

Among the donors not disclosed by the White House are a pair of health care companies seeking to protect or expand Medicare reimbursement for their products, as well as the Wall Street powerhouse BlackRock, whose bid to acquire a stake in Panama Canal ports has been supported by Mr. Trump amid opposition from China. Another is Jeff Yass, a major investor in TikTok’s parent company who could benefit from a Trump-backed deal to keep the social media app up and running in the United States.

Not disclosing the names is not, in itself, unlawful. The donations are being made through a nonprofit, the Trust for the National Mall, which is under no duty to reveal the donors’ identities.

Mr. Trump’s fund-raisers have been circulating a pledge form, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, seeking contributions for the ballroom, which gives donors the option of withholding their identities from public disclosure. Such donations could remain anonymous in perpetuity, as the funds are being raised and managed by the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit registered under a section of the tax code for charities that provides benefits for donors including the ability to claim tax deductions and to keep their identities anonymous.

On the one hand, true charity is done privately, without anything given in return, including being named so that the donor obtains the benefit of the public perception of being generous and charitable. This might explain the reason some donors prefer to remain anonymous, because they are giving out of the kindness of their heart and ask nothing in return.

But is that really the nature of at least some of the undisclosed donors, who have damn good reason to buy Trump’s love and will enjoy very substantial benefits from paying for the gold gilt glitz required by Trump’s bridge and tunnel aesthetic?

A White House official said in a statement that the identities of donors “who wish to be named publicly” will be disclosed, but that “donors also have the option to remain anonymous and we will honor that if that’s what they choose.”

A common response by the surrogates who appear on Sunday morning talk shows when asked why Trump does or doesn’t do something is “we don’t have to.” It’s true that they don’t have to disclose the donors who have chosen to remain private. It’s also true that this is another opportunity rife for corruption. Of course, as press secretary Karoline Leavitt says, Trump would never use his office for his personal benefit, even if he’s selling sneakers and watches and bibles from the Oval. Why would anyone think that building a ballroom, a monument to Trump’s greatness replete with all the gaudiness money can buy, would be used with bad intent by others to gain the good graces of Trump?