Lead: A seven-member federal arts panel composed largely of President Donald Trump’s January appointees voted Thursday to approve his plan for a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the footprint of the former East Wing in Washington, D.C. The vote, 6-0 with one commissioner absent from deliberations, clears one of two required federal reviews; the National Capital Planning Commission is still considering the proposal. The decision follows the East Wing’s demolition last October and arrives amid public opposition, a pending lawsuit and questions about funding and procurement.
Key Takeaways
- The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts voted 6-0 Thursday to approve the ballroom design; one of seven commissioners did not participate because he had been the project’s initial architect.
- The planned ballroom would be about 90,000 square feet — roughly 1.6 times larger than the White House’s 55,000 square feet — and is projected to seat about 1,000 people.
- Trump ordered demolition of the East Wing in October before the two federal review bodies or Congress completed public review, prompting criticism from lawmakers and preservationists.
- The National Capital Planning Commission, which must also sign off on the project, expects additional discussion at its March 5 meeting; that panel is chaired by a senior White House aide.
- The White House estimates the ballroom will cost about $400 million and says private donations will cover construction; the donor list released so far is incomplete.
- More than 2,000 public submissions were received by the arts commission; the panel’s secretary said over 99% of them opposed the plan.
- The National Trust for Historic Preservation has filed a federal lawsuit to block construction; a court ruling is pending.
Background
The proposal to build a large entertaining space adjacent to the Executive Residence grew from the administration’s stated desire to avoid erecting temporary tents on the South Lawn for state dinners and other official events. President Trump and his advisers have argued a permanent, larger facility would improve logistical arrangements and project a different image for official hospitality.
Opponents, including preservation groups, historians and some lawmakers, say the project upends long-standing review processes and risks altering the historic character of the White House complex. The East Wing, which previously occupied the site, was demolished in October without a completed public review by both federal planning bodies and without a fully transparent accounting of finances and contracts connected to the project.
Under federal rules, two agencies must approve such changes: the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), which advises on design and aesthetics, and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), which oversees construction and major renovations in the capital region. Both reviews and public comment opportunities are part of the statutory process that precedes any significant alteration of federally owned historic properties.
Main Event
The CFA convened a virtual meeting Thursday to evaluate revised drawings and landscaping plans presented by lead architect Shalom Baranes and landscape architect Rick Parisi. Commissioners had originally planned to postpone a final vote until a later session after a follow-up presentation, but chairman Rodney Mims Cook Jr. unexpectedly moved for an immediate final approval following the design discussion.
All six commissioners present voted in favor of the design; Commissioner James McCrery recused himself from the discussion and votes because he had been the initial architect on the project before being replaced. Commissioners largely offered complimentary remarks on the revisions described by the architects before casting their votes.
Public comment preceding the meeting was overwhelmingly negative, according to Thomas Leubke, the commission’s secretary, who said the commission received more than 2,000 messages and that “over 99%” opposed the plan. Objections cited the unilateral demolition of the East Wing, limited transparency about funding and procurement, and concerns about scale and historic integrity.
Administrations representatives maintain the ballroom will eliminate the need for tents and enhance the White House’s capacity to host state functions. President Trump has publicly defended the project on social media, posting renderings and saying that much of the material had already been ordered and that it would be impractical to halt progress. The administration estimates roughly $400 million in private funds will pay for construction; the donor list provided so far is incomplete.
Analysis & Implications
The CFA’s vote advances a politically sensitive and architecturally consequential project into its next regulatory stage, but approval from one agency does not guarantee construction. The NCPC, which must evaluate site planning, federal land use and broader regional impacts, retains the authority to modify or deny the proposal. Its March 5 meeting will be a pivotal moment in the schedule.
Legally, the pending National Trust lawsuit poses another obstacle. If a court finds procedural violations in the demolition or review process, it could halt work or require revisions. Even absent immediate injunctive relief, litigation can delay fundraising, contract awards and on-site activity, raising costs and complicating timelines for a privately funded project.
Politically, the episode highlights tensions over executive discretion on federal property versus statutory review and public input. The quick demolition last October and the compressed public-comment timeline have fed bipartisan scrutiny and may influence congressional oversight, appropriations riders or legislation to tighten review for White House grounds changes.
From a preservation and image standpoint, a 90,000-square-foot ballroom would materially change the footprint and public perception of the Executive Residence complex. Supporters frame that change as modernization and diplomatic necessity; critics see it as disproportionate to the historic fabric and the scale of existing state rooms.
Comparison & Data
| Space | Square feet | Typical capacity |
|---|---|---|
| Proposed ballroom | 90,000 | ~1,000 |
| White House (total) | 55,000 | — |
| East Room (largest current room) | — | ~200 |
The numbers above show the proposed ballroom would be nearly twice the total square footage of the White House building and would allow far larger diplomatic gatherings than current spaces. That scale drives many objections about historic appropriateness and practical impacts on the grounds and neighboring federal property.
Reactions & Quotes
Officials and stakeholders offered sharply divergent takes in public statements and comments submitted to the commission.
“Our sitting president has actually designed a very beautiful structure. The United States just should not be entertaining the world in tents.”
Rodney Mims Cook Jr., Chairman, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts
Cook framed the approval as an aesthetic and practical correction to the long-standing use of temporary tenting for state events, echoing the president’s public rationale.
“Over 99% of the more than 2,000 messages we received were opposed to the project.”
Thomas Leubke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts
Leubke summarized the volume and sentiment of public input, highlighting widespread objections focused on process, scale and transparency.
“We have recommended reducing the size to respect the primary historic importance of the original Executive Residence.”
National Trust for Historic Preservation (public comment)
The National Trust, which has also brought litigation, urged a more modest approach to preserve the historic character of the White House complex.
Unconfirmed
- Precise final construction timeline and contract award dates have not been released; reported schedules remain planning estimates.
- The full list of private donors and the exact payment schedule for the estimated $400 million cost are incomplete in public disclosures.
- Potential congressional responses—such as oversight hearings or legislative restrictions—are being discussed but no formal actions have been announced.
Bottom Line
The CFA vote moves the proposed 90,000-square-foot ballroom past one regulatory hurdle but does not guarantee construction. The NCPC review, a pending National Trust lawsuit and outstanding questions about funding and procurement mean the project faces legal, procedural and political uncertainties that could delay, alter or halt it.
For preservationists and many members of the public, the central concern remains process and scale: whether the site’s historic character and established review mechanisms were respected. For the administration, the argument centers on function and image — replacing tents with a permanent facility for large state events. The next critical dates to watch are the NCPC’s March 5 meeting and any judicial rulings on the pending litigation.
Sources
- Associated Press — news organization: original reporting on the CFA meeting and project details.
- U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) — federal advisory agency: procedural role in design review.
- National Trust for Historic Preservation — nonprofit preservation organization: filed a federal lawsuit and submitted comments urging size reduction.