The reaction to Donald Trump’s proposal to build a new ballroom connected to the east side of the White House has been heated and hostile—a quality it shares with just about every other attempt (successful and not) to tinker with the executive mansion that has housed every president but George Washington. Trump intends to railroad this project through to get it done before he leaves the White House (willingly or not). Preservationists, historians, federal oversight agencies, and the AIA, however, are saying, “Not so fast.” 

The White House is the product of a 1792 design competition, with the winner picked by President Washington. As soon as the paint was dry, the tinkering began. In a recently published article, “An Ever-Changing White House,” Stewart McLaurin of the White House Historical Association ticks off additions and alterations to the building since its completion 225 years ago. They’ve almost always sparked controversy, and often outrage. The building’s appearance today, especially the oldest part of the house (the competition-winning central block by Irish architect James Hoban), is not exactly what the designer intended. The addition of low-scale colonnades on the east and west by Thomas Jefferson, whose own competition design was rejected, were condemned by Federalist critics as evidence of the president’s “aristocratic tendencies.”

The south and north porticos were later added; Hoban designed the north one at Andrew Jackson’s request. Critics said that it was one more indication of Jackson’s “lavish presidency.” When Chester Arthur hired Louis Comfort Tiffany to decorate the interior, splashing around stained glass and enough gold leaf to make Trump giggle, he was blamed for turning the White House into a “palace” unfit for a democracy. In 1902, Theodore Roosevelt added the West Wing, which meant tearing down a bunch of greenhouse conservatories. McLaurin writes that the demolition “sparked outrage among preservationists and horticultural enthusiasts,” while the Washington Post rebuked Teddy for having “destroyed the building’s historical value.” The next president named Roosevelt came under attack for adding the East Wing—a wasteful expenditure, critics said, to bolster his own image—and expanded the West Wing to include the Oval Office.

In the summer of 1948, then-President Harry Truman’s daughter Margaret was playing her piano on the second floor of the residence when one of its legs crashed through the floor, penetrating the dining room ceiling below. An engineering assessment of the White House determined that the building was still standing purely “out of habit.” The building was clearly unsafe, and the Trumans moved to the Blair House, across Pennsylvania Avenue. Some thought was given to completely tearing down the White House to build a larger, up-to-date structure. Instead, an extensive gut rehab ensued, leaving only the four exterior stone walls standing. Steel and concrete structure was inserted, along with new HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and phone systems, as well as some salvaged historic fabric (much of which had been tossed, according to historians). It was, by far, the biggest change to the White House in its 150-year history, but the place still looked the same. Except for the Truman balcony added to the south portico, which was vigorously criticized for its impact on its appearance, and that it was “misappropriating the White House for personal indulgence.” (Truman paid for it out of his own pocket.)

Since Truman, the White House hasn’t been altered much, at least visually. That’s about to change, if Trump gets his way. He’s already tinkered in small ways: paving over Jackie Kennedy’s Rose Garden with enough stone tile to create its own heat island, kitsching up the Oval Office with a surfeit of gilded geegaws that would make Vladimir Putin blush. And then there’s that pair of whopping 88-foot-tall flagpoles (no comment). But Trump’s recently unveiled  ballroom has generated scads of commentary, criticism, and concern. The claim that the cost of this $200 million project will be covered by Trump and his “patriot donors” makes it ripe for influence peddling and money laundering, but what else is new? The billionaires want a clubhouse. 

Trump has long had ballrooms on the brain, and his ideas have been all over the map. In 2010 he approached the Obama administration’s David Axelrod with an idea to construct a demountable ballroom to replace the tented alternative he despises (too far from the residence, squishy ground, tent renters ripping us off, etc.). According to NBC News, Trump offered to hire five architects to design a knock-down ballroom for $100 million, free of charge. (Axelrod doesn’t recall Trump’s largess.) 

Trump has boasted, “I build ballrooms, beautiful ballrooms,” like the 20,000-square-foot one at Mar-a-Lago, the interior of which looks pretty much like the one Trump plans to build in D.C. There’s enough gold leaf to put a smile on Marie Antoinette’s face (the memes now circulating with Trump decked out as the French Queen seem on the mark). But while running in 2016, Trump said he would get rid of state dinners because they were a ripoff: “Forget the state dinners—that cost, by the way, a fortune.” So, no more state dinners. “We should be eating a hamburger on a conference table.” But now state dinners are back, along with a big, beautiful ballroom. 

On July 31, the project was presented at a White House press conference as a “much-needed and exquisite addition of approximately 90,000 total square feet of ornately designed and carefully crafted space, with a seated capacity of 650 people.” The site for this project is where the two-story East Wing now stands, which will be “modernized,” according to Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

There were lots of pretty pictures, but the addition’s size and scale are causes for concern. At 90,000 square feet, it will be nearly twice the size of the White House itself (55,000 square feet). Renderings from lead designer McCrery Architects show the connection of the ballroom to the White House through a new second-story addition to the East Colonnade, crashing into the exterior wall of the Hoban White House’s East Room. This is a major change and contradicts Trump’s claim that the ballroom addition “won’t interfere with the current building, it will be near it but not touching it.” Suspiciously, no drawings have been released showing the addition’s connection to Hoban’s White House from Pennsylvania Avenue. Renderings show the ballroom ceiling about 20 feet high, with the exterior of the wing effectively three stories high—nearly as tall as the White House (the cornice lines of the two buildings appear to be the same height). 

The most puzzling aspect of this project is its gargantuan square footage. Press releases and articles describe the ballroom as 90,000 square feet, but this is not possible on this site, nor is it reflected in the renderings. The north wall of the existing East Wing is approximately 80 feet wide (scaling off Google maps). To fit a 90,000-square-foot single-level ballroom of that width, the addition would have to be more than a thousand feet long, stretching beyond the White House fence to the south. I suspect that the 90,000 number is the total area of the addition, with modernized East Wing offices; kitchens, food prep, and support spaces; staff areas; and storage located on two levels under the ballroom. 

The ballroom as a single space would be closer to 25,000 square feet, about the size of the Mar-a-Lago ballroom Trump built in 2005. Side-by side comparisons of photos of it and the new ballroom renderings seem equivalent. This also aligns with diagrams showing the new addition’s footprint at about twice the length of the existing East Wing, approximately 280 feet. This means that two lower levels would account for 50,000 square feet and a ballroom of 25,000. With the new connection to Hoban’s White House, the project would be close to 90,000 square feet. Or it could be that Trump just overstated the size of the project, something he has a habit of doing. (McCrery Architects failed to respond to my questions about the project’s siting and design.) 

After the administration claimed that a 1964 executive order would allow it to bypass a review by the National Capital Planning Commission, which vets the construction and renovation of D.C.’s federal buildings, the Washington Post reported that this was indeed not the case. Trump wants to break ground in September, but documents for review have yet to be submitted. Also, if the National Park Service or other federal agency carries out planning, development, and construction of the proposed addition, then the project has to undergo review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Impacts on historic properties such as the White House, the National Mall, and all of the other historic buildings, landscapes, landmarks, and archaeological sites that might be affected need to be assessed, and any adverse effects would have to be resolved.  

A few days after the ballroom project’s unveiling, American Institute of Architects President Eveylyn Lee and AIA Interim EVP/CEO Stephen Ayers sent an open letter to the Committee for the Preservation of the White House, taking issue with the lack of transparency in the project’s development. The letter pointed out that Theodore Roosevelt had asked the AIA to be a “perpetual guardian” of the White House’s architectural integrity in 1908. 

The letter takes issue with the pace of decisions made regarding the ballroom, as well as with how they’ve been made. Such a significant change to the White House “must proceed in a systematic manner that is rooted in a deep understanding of place and a thoughtful, deliberate design process.” Trump intends to break ground for the ballroom in September, less than two months after the design was unveiled. The letter further states, “[W]e urge the Committee to allocate the time necessary for a rigorous process, ensuring that decisions are made with the utmost care and consideration.” 

Specifically, the letter goes on to state five recommendations that the project should address:

• A Qualifications-Based Selection Process should be used to hire “the most qualified architect or design team,” with a feedback process for “input from preservation specialists, engineers, security experts such as the Secret Service, and sustainability advisors.” 
• Rigorous processes for historic-preservation review to preserve Hoban’s original design and White House sightlines from Pennsylvania Avenue and Lafayette Square across the street, and adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to safeguard the building’s architectural legacy. 
• Transparency and public accountability, with a design and decision-making processes that’s open to public input, which should go a long way to allay public concerns about changes proposed to this national landmark.
• Proportionality and design harmony between the addition and the existing White House fabric, noting that a 90,000-square-foot addition raises concerns. “We urge careful consideration of adjustments that would align the proposed addition more closely with the White House’s historic character.”
• Collaboration and expertise with the White House on AIA’s part, as part of its legacy of guardianship, so that the project fulfills its goals while adhering to current best preservation practices.

 The letter closes with the hope that the committee will discuss these recommendations with the AIA.

Thus far, no response. 

Featured image: View of the ballroom addition from the northeast corner of the White House, showing its impact on the original building. A new rooftop corridor will crash into Hoban’s East Room. Courtesy of McCrery Architects PLLC 2025.