Experts on historic preservation are raising concerns over the feasibility of President Trump’s plans to complete large-scale renovations to the White House by the end of his term, and whether the project can be done while respecting the historic nature of the building.
Mr. Trump unveiled plans on Thursday to construct a $200 million, 90,000-square-foot state ballroom off the East Wing to be completed “long before” the end of his term in 2029. The project would be one of the largest renovations to the iconic building in decades.
Mr. Trump has been on a winning streak this summer, emerging victorious in a series of Supreme Court rulings, signing a massive bill to carry out his domestic policy agenda and winning concessions from some of America’s top trading partners. Now, by checking off a long-sought item on his list of pet projects, Mr. Trump is showing that he apparently feels emboldened to continue flexing his presidential power.
The White House, the Supreme Court building, the Capitol and all their “related buildings and grounds” are exempt from the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which requires federal agencies to assess and mitigate adverse effects to historic properties and seek consultation through a formal review process.
Instead, the White House has its own committee that provides advice on the “preservation and the interpretation of the museum character” of the building. The Committee for the Preservation of the White House — chaired by the director of the National Park Service — is made up of several federal officials and a number of members appointed by the president.
Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, said on Thursday in a news release that the administration was “fully committed to working with the appropriate organizations to preserving the special history of the White House.”
Still, the committee’s recommendations are not binding, giving the president significant leeway to do as he wishes. “In most cases, you’re not going to have a lot of binding obligations to historic buildings,” said Michael Spencer, a professor of historic preservation at the University of Mary Washington.
The sheer scale of the project — a giant ballroom attached to the East Wing — worries preservationists. “It could do some harm to the property over all,” said Richard Longstreth, a former professor of American studies at George Washington University. “There aren’t any checks and balances here, unfortunately.”
Mr. Spencer said his expectations on preservation were “pretty low.”
“We’re oftentimes viewed as getting in the way of progress, and I would say in this particular instance, you’ve got a lot of strong personalities and they’re under no obligation to really follow best practices as preservation puts forth,” he said.
Jonathan Jarvis, former director of the National Park Service, which is responsible for the upkeep of the White House and its grounds, said any additions made to the White House must follow the architectural design of the building. “You couldn’t put something on the side of the building that doesn’t match it historically in terms of its architecture, coloration and style,” he said.
He cast doubt on the timeline the Trump administration proposed, calling its plans to finish a project of this scale by the end of Mr. Trump’s term “optimistic.”
“You don’t see one of those projects go that fast,” he said. “It’ll be a rush to get it done.”
Mr. Jarvis, who was the director of the National Park Service from 2009 to 2017, said construction at the White House is a “complicated process” because it is “not just normal construction.”
“It’s the White House — it has to survive a terrorist attack,” he said. He added that every step of the process would need to be evaluated to ensure that nothing “is being compromised architecturally or from a security standpoint.”
Stewart D. McLaurin, president of the White House Historical Association, said the White House has gone through numerous changes to its interior and exterior since the cornerstone was laid in 1792, and many of them faced resistance. He said many of those changes made the White House what it is today.
“The South Portico, the North Portico, the East Wing, the West Wing and the Truman Balcony all raised concerns at the time — but today, we can’t imagine the White House without these iconic elements,” he said.
It remains unclear whether the Committee for the Preservation of the White House, which works in tandem with the White House Historical Association, has provided recommendations or raised concerns about Mr. Trump’s ballroom. A spokeswoman for the historical association, Jessica Fredericks, did not respond to questions about the committee’s position on the project.
In addition to the director of the National Park Service, the committee is composed of representatives from the White House, the Smithsonian Institution, the Commission of Fine Arts, the National Gallery of Art and a handful of presidential appointees.
Mr. Trump has not nominated a park service director, a position that requires Senate confirmation, or announced the appointments of individuals to serve on the committee. The terms of 13 individuals that former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. appointed to the committee in 2023 expired when Mr. Trump began his second term, according to a government database. Jessica Bowron, the comptroller of the National Park Service, is currently serving as its acting director.
The president tapped McCrery Architects as the lead architect of the project. James McCrery, the company’s founding principal architect, was appointed by Mr. Trump in 2019 to serve a four-year term on the Commission of Fine Arts. He called the ballroom a necessary addition to the White House, where presidents have “faced challenges hosting major events.”
Mr. McCrery said he would preserve “the elegance of its classical design and historical importance” of the White House.
Questions about who is funding the project are also still largely unanswered. White House officials said the president and “other patriot donors” would pay for the renovations but declined to give details.
When asked on Friday if he would block foreign donations, Mr. Trump said he had not thought about it: “I’m not looking for that. You have very strong restrictions. And we go by the restrictions.”
Still, Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in government ethics, called the lack of transparency “completely outrageous.” She questioned whether the donors were seeking “ways to get in good with Trump.”
“He feels emboldened,” she said. “He feels like he can do anything.”
Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.
Ashley Ahn covers breaking news for The Times from New York.
The post Experts Raise Concerns Over Trump’s White House Ballroom Renovation Plans appeared first on New York Times.
