White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt blasted The New York Times over a piece about the new White House ballroom that describes the plans as “unnecessarily big” and “very tall” in an interactive image of the ballroom plans.

“The New York Times had three random people who have ‘studied fine arts,’ ‘long written about urban planning,’ and never built anything to write an article criticizing the new White House ballroom. President Trump and his lead architect have built world-class buildings around the world, and they are ensuring the People’s House finally has a beautiful ballroom that’s been needed for decades — at no expense to the taxpayer,” she wrote on X.

The piece was written by a trained architect, a person who “studied fine arts,” as well as someone who has “long written about urban planning,” according to The Times.

The article showcased an interactive image of the ballroom that included red arrows and circles critiquing the structure. One circle on the roof of the ballroom design image said it was “unnecessarily big,” as another arrow highlighting the height of the design read, “very tall.”

WHITE HOUSE FIRES BACK AT CRITICS CALLING TRUMP’S MASSIVE ARCH ‘TOO BIG’

Another arrow pointed to “faux windows on the north side.”

Danielle Rhoades Ha, a spokesperson for The New York Times, issued a statement on X in response to Leavitt.

“Our article is based on interviews with architects, current and former government officials, and historical preservationists. It relies on public documentation of the building plans, and it quotes White House officials involved in the planning of the new ballroom. Compared with other major projects in Washington, this one has had little time for public review, and experts warn the design has many issues. We’re confident in the accuracy of our story,” the statement read.

WHITE HOUSE SAYS EAST WING DEMOLITION WAS NECESSARY DUE TO STRUCTURAL ISSUES

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for additional comment. The New York Times pointed Fox News Digital to the statement they posted on X.

Marc Thiessen, a columnist for The Washington Post, called it “embarrassing” for The New York Times.

The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney posted a photo of the New York Times building and used comments from the outlet’s article on the ballroom to describe the New York City building.

The Washington Free Beacon’s Jon Levine argued that there was no way The New York Times would publish something positive about the ballroom.

President Donald Trump said Sunday that the military is constructing a “massive complex” beneath a planned White House ballroom, which he said will feature bulletproof glass and drone-proof protections while being funded entirely by private donors.

The project, which Trump said is designed to accommodate large events and guests, would expand capacity at the White House, where he said existing rooms are too small for major gatherings.

“The military is building a massive complex under the ballroom, and that’s under construction, and we’re doing very well,” Trump said.

The president responded to the critique of the windows from The New York Times report, and said during his remarks on Sunday, “We have no fake windows.”

A New Jersey school district is being threatened with legal action unless it repeals a policy that lets schools withhold students’ gender-identity information from parents, setting up what could become an early test of the Supreme Court’s recent intervention in the fight over parental rights and school disclosure rules.

The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal group, accused the Westwood Regional School District in a demand letter of wrongfully maintaining the policy, which also allows the schools, in some cases, to aid K-12 students’ “social transition” to becoming transgender without their parents’ knowledge. 

The move comes weeks after the Supreme Court dealt a major victory to conservative parents in Mirabelli v. Bonta by upholding an injunction against a similar policy in California. 

“I had hoped this would end the practice of secret gender transitions, but what’s becoming clear to us is this is just the beginning,” Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive vice president, told Fox News Digital. “This is not an end, but a beginning, our big win in the Supreme Court. We are already fielding requests from other parents across the country, and we anticipate sending a lot more demand letters, unfortunately.”

CATHOLIC GROUP ASKS SCOTUS TO BLOCK CALIFORNIA LAW AGAINST REVEALING STUDENTS’ GENDER IDENTITIES TO PARENTS

Fox News Digital reached out to the school district board members who received the letter, as well as the district’s superintendent, for comment but did not receive responses. The school board told local media earlier in March that members were consulting with district counsel and reviewing policies. 

The letter requires the New Jersey school district to repeal its policy, called Policy 5756, within 20 days. Otherwise, Breen said, the Thomas More Society would follow the same path it did in California and begin litigation.

“When the Supreme Court decides a case, the logic of the decision is binding on every other court in the country, federal or state,” Breen said. “And so, the Supreme Court has said that parents have a fundamental right to control the upbringing and education of their children… and so a school official who defies that right could be subject individually to a lawsuit, not just the school district.”

In Mirabelli, California parents and teachers argued that the state’s transgender policy violated their rights under the First and 14th Amendments. The policy prevented school administrators from telling parents about their child’s potential efforts to transition their gender unless the child consented to it. It also required school staff to use students’ preferred names and pronouns regardless of the parents’ wishes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta in the case, leading the parents and teachers to turn to the Supreme Court. The high court vacated the 9th Circuit’s order 6-3 on an expedited and temporary basis while the case proceeds through the lower courts. The three liberal justices dissented.

FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN ‘GENDER SECRECY’ POLICIES IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

“The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy,” the high court’s majority wrote in the unsigned opinion. “But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

Corey DeAngelis, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, observed to Fox News Digital at the time that the Supreme Court’s decision was the latest in a string of victories for conservatives seeking to tighten policies surrounding transgender people. DeAngelis noted it only applied to California, despite its anticipated impact on other states.

“This precedent is surely a sign of good things to come,” DeAngelis said. “If there’s a lawsuit that arises in another state, you can be pretty sure that the Supreme Court is going to rule on the side of families.”

The Supreme Court has weighed in recently on several key gender identity disputes through full opinions and emergency orders, and the decisions have broken along ideological lines. Outside Mirabelli, the high court in United States v. Skrmetti affirmed 6-3 a state’s authority to ban certain transgender medical treatment for minors under the equal protection clause. In a 6-3 emergency ruling last year, the justices temporarily greenlit President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender service members serving in the military.

The high court is also weighing two relevant and closely watched cases, one on a religious-based therapist offering alternative counseling to transgender youths and one on transgender athletes. Decisions on those are expected by the summer.

Amanda Peet is pulling back the threadbare curtain on life underneath the spotlight.

The 54-year-old actress called out Hollywood as nothing but “smoke and mirrors.”

“It’s ridiculous,” Peet told Fox News Digital when asked about the “biggest misconception” of stars having a “perfect life” in Hollywood. “It’s smoke and mirrors. There’s no there there. I mean you name the aphorism, it applies to us. It’s desperation galore. ‘What are they doing over there? Why don’t I have that? Why don’t I look like that?’ That’s the bad part.”

She continued, “In Hollywood, it’s hard to — I’m gonna just sound corny. It’s competitive, and it’s hard to get out of that really sort of competitive mindset where the piece of cheese on the island is too small and there are too many people going after it.”

VINCE VAUGHN EXPOSES HOLLYWOOD’S ELITIST MINDSET: ‘WE’RE SMART…YOU’RE AN IDIOT’ IF YOU DISAGREE

The “Something’s Gotta Give” actress added that aging in the youth-obsessed industry isn’t easy either.

“I’m older, so I have much more peace about it, but it’s really, really hard to find that, and it is hard not to want to chase your own buzz if you are lucky enough to have any, and instead, just be like, ‘What do I really want to do when my alarm goes off in the morning? What do I want to be doing? Is this really what I want to be doing? Is this really helpful or useful to anyone?’”

WATCH: Amanda Peet calls Hollywood glamour ‘ridiculous’ and ‘smoke and mirrors’

Peet is starring in the second season of Apple TV’s “Your Friends & Neighbors,” which premieres on Friday, April 3 with one new episode each week through June 5.

VALERIE BERTINELLI FINDS STRENGTH AFTER DEVASTATING YEAR OF HEALTH BATTLES AND EMOTIONAL HEARTBREAK

She said that fans can expect a “lot more” from season two.

“Then also there’s the issue of Coop having this secret life,” Peet said of Jon Hamm’s character who plays her ex-husband on the show.

“And I think this season, one too many people are starting to get an inkling that something’s going on with Coop,” she continued. “And so it gets more and more dangerous for him to keep doing what he’s doing, which is incredibly exciting. And then [her character] Mel and Coop are still in this kind of like, will they, won’t they? They’re so pissed off at each other, but they still seem to wanna f— each other. So yeah, it’s just really a whole big hot mess.”

WATCH: Amanda Peet reveals fans can expect a ‘lot more’ from season 2 of ‘Your Friends & Neighbors’

Peet said she also appreciated a storyline where her character deals with going into menopause, which she said was cathartic for her.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

“It was very cathartic to be able to put my own menopausal frustrations and rage into an appropriate situation, namely be acting out as a character instead of in my own life,” Peet revealed.

The actress has also been open about her breast cancer diagnosis, which she announced earlier this month.

LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS

She told Fox News Digital that when she first heard the news, her thoughts were filled with “terror.”

“My children and terror,” she admitted.

Peet said she made the decision to not tell her dying mother “because she wasn’t well for so long that it was, you know, fairly obvious that I, you know, on the off chance that she would have been able to understand, I wouldn’t have wanted to scare her.”

“So, it wasn’t a hard decision, it was just sort of hard in a more global way because I had been so close to her all my life.”

Peet revealed her breast cancer diagnosis in a New Yorker essay last Saturday, saying that she is stage I and doesn’t need chemotherapy, but will go undergo a lumpectomy and radiation.