Why Trump’s White House ballroom plan has sparked internal clashes and political backlash

Why Trump’s White House ballroom plan has sparked internal clashes and political backlash

US President Donald Trump has been pushing forward with one of the most ambitious physical changes to the White House in its 233-year history: the construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom. But the scale of the project has led to clashes between Trump and the architect he personally selected, James McCrery II, according to multiple people familiar with internal conversations, the Washington Post reported.

Trump has repeatedly urged McCrery to expand the size of the ballroom, despite warnings that the addition could overwhelm the existing 55,000-square-foot mansion. McCrery has advised restraint, citing a long-accepted architectural principle: an addition should not visually dominate the original structure. The disagreement, acknowledged by a White House official as part of a normal design process, reflects a deeper tension between Trump’s preferred gilded aesthetic and long-standing preservation norms.

Trump’s personal involvement in the design

Administration officials say Trump has taken an intense, hands-on role. He has held frequent Oval Office meetings dedicated exclusively to the ballroom. A scale model of the proposed structure now sits in the Oval Office and has become a regular reference point in discussions.

The ballroom, which would also house offices previously located in the East Wing, represents Trump’s biggest reimagining of the White House since taking office again. The president believes the new space is essential for hosting large state events and sees it as a signature achievement of his second term.

McCrery, a classical architect known for projects such as the US Supreme Court bookstore and the Reagan statue pedestal in the Capitol, was appointed to design the ballroom in July. For his firm, which has mostly handled churches, homes and libraries, the ballroom is by far the largest project it has ever undertaken. People familiar with the discussions say McCrery has been reluctant to challenge Trump publicly, concerned that if he withdraws, the project might be taken over by someone less committed to architectural standards.

An unprecedented construction effort moving at high speed

Within weeks of Trump hiring McCrery, the administration announced the ballroom plan and said construction would begin within two months. Work on site has already accelerated. Photos from the construction zone show heavy machinery, reinforced concrete pipes and dozens of workers operating behind high fencing that shields much of the progress from public view.

The White House has not publicly disclosed key details such as the building’s height or how the addition would integrate with the historic residence. It has not yet submitted the plan to the National Capital Planning Commission, the federal body responsible for reviewing major construction projects in Washington. The project does not appear on the agenda for the commission’s next meeting, though officials say they will submit plans “at the appropriate time.”

Concerns over secrecy, cost and donor influence

The project has attracted criticism for its speed, limited transparency and shifting specifications. Earlier estimates claimed a $200 million cost and space for 650 people. Trump has recently suggested the ballroom may cost $300 million or more and could hold up to 1,000 guests.

More controversy has arisen over the funding. Instead of congressional appropriations, the project is being financed by wealthy donors and corporations, including companies with federal contracts such as Amazon, Lockheed Martin and Palantir. A donor list released by the White House included 37 names, but officials admitted it was not comprehensive.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats have demanded detailed disclosures, arguing that private financing of White House construction raises ethical and national-security concerns. They have introduced legislation that would require greater transparency from donors and tighter restrictions on presidential building projects.

A project reflecting Trump’s vision — and his approach to power

For Trump, the ballroom is a defining symbol of his second-term agenda and his belief in his own judgment as a designer and builder. But the project has also become a case study in how he wields federal power: unilaterally, quickly and with little patience for longstanding norms.

As construction continues and political scrutiny deepens, the ballroom has become far more than a renovation. It is now a flashpoint over presidential authority, donor influence and the delicate balance between historic preservation and personal ambition.