President Donald J. Trump on Dec. 4, 2025, replaced the architecture team overseeing a planned White House ballroom, the administration announced, after months of disagreement over design, size and a compressed timetable. The White House named Shalom Baranes Associates to lead the next design phase, departing from McCrery Architects, whose principal had presented plans meant to align with the mansion’s existing historic fabric. The move follows the October demolition of the East Wing and the President’s push to build a ballroom substantially larger than the 20,000-square-foot model at Mar-a-Lago. Officials say the change is intended to accelerate construction and expand the project’s scope.
Key Takeaways
- The White House announced on Dec. 4, 2025, that Shalom Baranes Associates will oversee the ballroom project’s next design phase, replacing McCrery Architects.
- Administration spokesman Davis R. Ingle described the new firm as experienced in government projects and part of “a team of experts” for the initiative.
- The East Wing was demolished in October 2025 as part of preparations for the ballroom and related work on the estate.
- The President has sought a ballroom more than four times the size of the 20,000-square-foot Mar-a-Lago example, implying a design target above 80,000 square feet.
- Tension arose after McCrery’s plans aimed to match the White House’s historic character, while the President pressed for a faster, larger build.
- The administration frames the project as the largest White House addition since the Oval Office; the timeline and final budget remain undisclosed.
Background
Plans for a formal ballroom at the White House have long been politically and architecturally sensitive because any major alteration to the executive mansion touches preservation rules, security needs and public expectations. McCrery Architects, led by James McCrery and known for ecclesiastical work, initially produced designs described to the President as sympathetic to the mansion’s established style. That approach drew on precedent for additions that respect historic context—an approach favored by many preservationists and some career staff at the White House.
During 2025 the project’s profile rose as the President publicly compared the proposed ballroom to the Mar-a-Lago space in Palm Beach, Florida. His decision in October to remove the East Wing, part of the complex used for visitor and staff functions, marked an unusually aggressive step to clear space quickly. Federal oversight, contracting rules and historic-review processes remain relevant constraints even as the administration presses for speed.
Main Event
On Dec. 4, the White House formally announced Shalom Baranes Associates, a Washington, D.C.-based firm with a long record of government work, as the new lead designer for the ballroom. The administration said the firm would join “a team of experts” to realize a larger design, framing the hire as part of an effort to deliver a project on an accelerated schedule. Davis R. Ingle, a White House spokesman, praised Shalom Baranes’s experience and suggested the firm’s local and governmental portfolio made it well suited to the assignment.
The change follows an apparent rift with McCrery Architects after Mr. McCrery presented plans intended to match the White House’s historic interior. According to officials, the President’s ambition grew beyond those proposals, seeking a ballroom that would substantially exceed the 20,000-square-foot Mar-a-Lago template and be completed on a condensed timeline. Sources familiar with the discussions characterize the split as driven by differing priorities on scale and speed rather than personal animus alone.
The demolition of the East Wing in October 2025 removed a familiar portion of the complex and signaled the administration’s willingness to undertake major alteration to accommodate the new program. Officials have not released a final schematic, precise square-footage target, construction schedule or a projected budget, and planning documents are likely to undergo additional agency reviews before permitting and procurement proceed.
Analysis & Implications
The selection of Shalom Baranes Associates has practical and symbolic implications. Practically, the firm’s government experience should ease coordination with federal review processes, contractors and security planners; symbolically, it signals a pivot toward architects with a stronger record on civic and institutional projects. That may help the administration present the work as professional and compliant with technical requirements even as critics raise preservation concerns.
A ballroom more than four times the size of Mar-a-Lago’s 20,000 square feet would place new demands on the White House site: structural reinforcement, mechanical systems, fire and life-safety upgrades, and changes to ingress and egress for large events. These technical requirements can slow approvals and increase costs, particularly on a site that is both a historic residence and a high-security federal facility. Contractors experienced in sensitive government work will be essential to manage those trade-offs.
Politically, the project exposes the administration to scrutiny from preservationists, Congress and watchdog groups focused on federal spending and historic preservation. Opponents may question the necessity and cost of a major ballroom addition while supporters frame it as an investment in the institution’s representational capacity. How the White House documents the rationale, budget and procurement decisions will shape the public debate and any congressional interest.
Comparison & Data
| Venue | Approx. Ballroom Size (sq ft) |
|---|---|
| Mar-a-Lago (Palm Beach, FL) | 20,000 |
| White House (proposed target) | >80,000 (as described by administration comparisons) |
The administration’s public comparisons place the new White House ballroom at more than four times Mar-a-Lago’s 20,000 square feet, implying a design above 80,000 square feet. Such a footprint would represent a major new interior volume for the White House complex and exceed the scale of most historic state rooms on the estate. If the final program approaches that size, the project will require substantial engineering and may trigger additional historic-preservation reviews and permitting steps.
Reactions & Quotes
Officials framed the staffing change as a technical and managerial step rather than an admission of failure. Observers in the architecture and preservation communities expressed caution about scale and speed.
“Shalom is an accomplished architect whose work has shaped the architectural identity of our nation’s capital for decades, and his experience will be a great asset to the completion of this project.”
Davis R. Ingle, White House spokesman (official statement)
Administration messaging emphasized experience and continuity with government projects, while critics have warned that rapid expansion and demolition on the historic site could carry long-term costs. The appointment of a firm familiar with federal processes is likely intended to preempt some procedural objections.
“[The firm] will join a team of experts to carry out President Trump’s vision on building what will be the greatest addition to the White House since the Oval Office.”
Davis R. Ingle, White House spokesman (official statement)
Unconfirmed
- The precise final square footage of the new ballroom has not been released; administration comparisons suggest it may exceed 80,000 square feet but that figure is not confirmed.
- No official, detailed budget or funding source has been published; cost estimates and appropriation pathways remain unclear.
- The project’s expected completion date and milestone schedule have not been disclosed and may change pending regulatory reviews and procurement timelines.
Bottom Line
The administration’s decision to replace McCrery Architects with Shalom Baranes Associates marks a clear shift in approach: from an initial design intended to mirror historic White House character toward a faster, larger and more institutionally managed project. That pivot reflects competing priorities—historic compatibility versus scale and speed—which will shape technical choices and public debate in coming months.
Key uncertainties remain: final size, cost, schedule and the outcome of necessary federal reviews. How transparently the White House documents those elements will determine political and institutional reactions, and whether the project proceeds smoothly or becomes the focus of extended scrutiny.
Sources
- The New York Times — (news report)
- Shalom Baranes Associates — (firm website)
- McCrery Architects — (firm website)