Listen to the article
The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts has approved former President Donald Trump’s controversial proposal to build a massive ballroom at the White House, moving forward a project that has faced significant public opposition and legal challenges.
In an unexpected move Thursday, the seven-member panel—composed entirely of Trump appointees—not only approved the design concept but also granted final approval during the same meeting. Five commissioners voted in favor of the project, while commissioner James McCrery recused himself due to his initial involvement as the project’s architect before Trump replaced him. Commissioner Roger Kimball had already departed the meeting for another commitment.
The approved ballroom, spanning 90,000 square feet, would be nearly twice the size of the White House itself, which measures 55,000 square feet. According to Trump, the new structure would accommodate approximately 1,000 people, vastly exceeding the capacity of the East Room—currently the White House’s largest space—which can hold just over 200 guests at maximum capacity.
The ballroom would replace the former East Wing, which Trump had demolished in October with minimal public notice—a move that triggered significant backlash from lawmakers, historians, and preservationists. Critics argued that Trump should have waited for proper approvals from federal agencies and Congress, along with public comment periods, before proceeding with the demolition.
Commission Chairman Rodney Mims Cook Jr. defended the project by referencing one of Trump’s primary justifications for the ballroom: eliminating the need for temporary structures on the South Lawn for state events. “Our sitting president has actually designed a very beautiful structure,” Cook stated during the meeting. “The United States just should not be entertaining the world in tents.”
However, public sentiment has overwhelmingly opposed the project. Thomas Luebke, the commission’s secretary, reported that “over 99%” of more than 2,000 public comments received were against the ballroom. Many commenters expressed concerns about the unilateral demolition of the East Wing, lack of transparency regarding funding, and questions about the contract award process.
The commission meeting, conducted via Zoom, featured presentations from lead architect Shalom Baranes and landscape architect Rick Parisi, who showcased renderings of the ballroom and surrounding grounds. In response to previous commissioner feedback, Baranes noted that the design had been modified to remove a large pediment above the south portico that had been criticized for its overwhelming size—a change Trump reportedly agreed to.
“I think taking the pediment off the south side was a really good move,” commented commissioner Mary Anne Carter, who also heads the National Endowment for the Arts. “I think that really helps to restore some balance and make it look more aligned” with the White House.
Despite securing this approval, the project faces additional hurdles. The National Capital Planning Commission, the second federal agency that must approve the plans, is scheduled to discuss the project on March 5. That commission is led by a top White House aide and previously heard an initial presentation about the ballroom in January.
The project also faces legal challenges. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has filed a federal lawsuit to halt construction, with a ruling still pending. Carol Quillen, president and CEO of the privately funded nonprofit, expressed confusion over the commission’s decision to vote on final approval when the complete plans had not been fully presented or reviewed.
“We remain deeply concerned that the size, location, and massing of this proposal will overwhelm the carefully balanced classical design of the White House, a symbol of our democratic republic,” Quillen stated.
Trump has claimed the ballroom will cost approximately $400 million and be funded through private donations. To date, the White House has only released an incomplete list of donors, adding to transparency concerns surrounding the project.
During the commission’s January meeting, some members had questioned Baranes about the “immense” scale of the project, even while broadly supporting Trump’s vision. The White House has defended the East Wing’s demolition, citing structural issues including an unstable colonnade, water leakage, mold contamination, and other problems that made preservation impractical.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
While I understand the desire to modernize and expand White House facilities, this ballroom plan seems to go too far. The public deserves a transparent process and justification for such a major undertaking.
Agreed. The White House belongs to the people, not any one president. Significant public input should be required for such a dramatic physical alteration.
This seems like a questionable use of public resources and commission powers. Approving such a massive expansion of the White House without significant public input raises concerns about transparency and priorities.
I agree, the scale and lack of public process are troubling. The White House should serve the people, not aggrandize the presidency.
A 90,000 sq ft ballroom is simply excessive and out of touch with the needs and priorities of average Americans. I hope this plan is rejected on grounds of fiscal responsibility and appropriate scale.
Well said. The White House should reflect the modest, functional character of the federal government, not the opulent tastes of any one leader.
Replacing the East Wing with a 90,000 sq ft ballroom seems like an extravagant and unnecessary expansion of the presidential residence. I hope this proposal faces rigorous public scrutiny and legal challenges.
I share your concern. The scale and cost of this project should be carefully examined, especially given the current economic climate and other pressing national priorities.
Approving this project with an all-Trump-appointed commission raises red flags about potential conflicts of interest or abuse of power. I hope the legal challenges are successful in halting this proposal.
That’s a valid concern. The composition of the commission should be balanced and representative to ensure fair and objective decision-making on public projects.
I’m curious to learn more about the commission’s rationale for approving this project, given the public opposition mentioned. What factors did they weigh in their decision?
That’s a good question. The article doesn’t provide much detail on the commission’s reasoning, which is disappointing. More transparency around their deliberations would be helpful.
While I understand the desire to modernize White House facilities, this ballroom proposal seems to go too far in terms of scale and cost. I hope the public opposition and legal challenges can halt this project.
I agree. The White House should serve the people, not the personal preferences of any president. This plan needs much more public scrutiny and justification.