An independent planning commission reviewing President Donald Trump’s ballroom building softened its own official documentation about the project at the White House’s request, records show.
The National Capital Planning Commission is scheduled to vote Thursday on the project, the final procedural obstacle to building a 90,000-square-foot structure that would dramatically remake one of the most recognized symbols of American power and democracy. Emails obtained by The Washington Post through a public records request show the commission changed what would become a public FAQ document about the ballroom after a White House staffer asked it to soften language about the commission’s authority over the project. The commission then released the document ahead of its Jan. 8 meeting to provide information about its role in reviewing federal construction projects, when it would take up the ballroom and whether it had reviewed previous White House projects.
The draft included the subhead “Why is the National Capital Planning Commission reviewing the project?” under which it definitively stated that the White House sits on federal land — a fact that “requires” federal agencies to get commission approval, according to a Dec. 19 email sent by commission General Counsel Meghan Hottel-Cox. White House staffer Heather Martin requested the addition of a sentence explicitly stating the White House is not a federal agency but had asked the commission to review the project “in the spirit of cooperation.”
The commission deleted the entire subhead and the word “require,” softening the explanation of its role to: “Projects located on federal land within the District of Columbia come to NCPC for review.”
The exchange is likely to deepen concerns about the commission’s independence. Critics have already questioned Trump’s decision to appoint three White House staffers to the 12-member board, which Congress created more than a century ago to ensure federal construction projects conform with a comprehensive vision. They argue the appointees lack the experience in city or regional planning the law requires — and the independence from the White House to make their own decisions.
The emails show the Trump administration once again flexing executive power to influence what’s supposed to be an independent process, said Jon Golinger, democracy advocate with the Public Citizen, a liberal advocacy group that often opposes Trump.
“This is further evidence of the hidden hand of the White House during this whole process … like a puppet master pulling the strings, in this case, behind the scenes,” Golinger said.
Hottel-Cox said it’s “normal practice” for the commission to share documents with project applicants so they can comment and make corrections.
“That same process was followed here,” she wrote in an email.
The Trump administration defended its work with the commission.
“The White House has and is working collaboratively in good faith with all relevant parties, including the National Capital Planning Commission,” spokesman Davis Ingle said in an email. “We are not ‘directing’ them to do anything.”
The White House’s suggested edits to the FAQ document conform to the argument the administration has made for months: As president, Trump has broad authority to unilaterally make changes to the White House executive residence.
On Tuesday, a federal judge disagreed with that position, ruling that Trump needs congressional approval to fund the estimated $400 million project through private donations. Calling Trump a “steward” rather than an owner of the White House, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ordered a halt to construction, although he stayed that order for two weeks and made an exception for work necessary for safety and security.
The White House notified the court it would appeal Leon’s decision, calling it “egregious.”
The Trump administration originally planned to have the project approved at the commission’s meeting last month, but the agency delayed the vote because of “significant public input,” citing the amount of public testimony.
Marcel Acosta, the commission’s executive director and a career government official, recommends the 12-member committee approve the project. In an 11-page report published in late February, he said the proposed structure would provide presidents with a larger permanent event space while protecting “the historic integrity and cultural landscape of the White House.”
That assessment contrasts sharply with the public response. Dozens of people, including architects, historic preservationists and at least one former commissioner, told the panel they were against the project during last month’s public meeting. More than 35,000 comments were submitted, with a “vast majority” in opposition to the $400 million project, commission staff said. The Post found that more than 97 percent of comments were critical of the president’s plans.
In February, the Commission of Fine Arts, which Trump also stacked with loyalists, including his 26-year-old executive assistant, voted unanimously to approve the project. Those commissioners universally praised the project, with Chair Rodney Mims Cook Jr. calling it “desperately needed” and “a very beautiful structure,” whose design he credited to Trump.
The White House recently remade both commissions reviewing the project. The planning commission is led by Will Scharf, Trump’s former personal lawyer and current staff secretary, and includes two other White House officials who critics say are legally unqualified for their seats.
While federal design commissions have traditionally acted as a constraint on government construction projects — often holding extended deliberations that last for years — Thursday’s planned action underscores how Trump has bent federal processes to quickly push his ballroom to approval as he rushes to finish construction before the end of his second term.
Last year, the president ordered the rapid demolition of the East Wing annex without first seeking authorization from Congress or the committees it has empowered to review federal construction projects. Trump’s plan for a new ballroom that matches the “height and scale” of the main White House has advanced despite objections from a federal judge, architecture experts and historic preservationists, who argue the structure would be too big, dwarfing a centuries-old American symbol.
The administration is asking the commission to depart from its normal procedure by approving preliminary and final plans simultaneously, a process that typically unfolds across separate meetings over months. For example, the planning commission approved a new White House perimeter fence in four steps over nine months, starting with a information presentation in May 2016 and ending with final plans in February 2017.
The post Ballroom commission changed documents at White House’s request appeared first on Washington Post.
