President Donald Trump is advancing plans to demolish the East Wing of the White House to build an expanded ballroom, disregarding objections from historic preservationists and proceeding without full regulatory approval. The project’s cost has increased significantly, and demolition is already underway, sparking legal and preservation debates.
The demolition of the East Wing is progressing rapidly, with approximately half of the structure reduced to rubble as of Wednesday. Work crews using track excavators have been tearing down the building, which formerly housed the office of the first lady, the White House calligrapher, and some military aides. Staff from these departments have been relocated to other areas on the complex, and officials expect the entire East Wing to be demolished by the end of the week. The swift pace of destruction has left little time for intervention from critics.
President Trump has been personally involved in the project, showing visitors two tabletop models of the proposed ballroom and quizzing them on their preference between a smaller and a larger version. Most respondents favored the larger design, which Trump agreed with, leading to an increase in the projected cost from $200 million to $300 million. While the exact size of the expansion remains unclear, the president emphasized that the ballroom would complement the White House aesthetically, drawing inspiration from the style of his Mar-a-Lago estate.
The White House argues that the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), which oversees federal construction in Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas, does not have jurisdiction over demolition, only vertical construction. However, former NCPC chairman L. Preston Bryant Jr. disputed this, stating that demolition is typically integrated into the overall project review process. The Trump administration recently appointed White House staff secretary Will Scharf to chair the NCPC, along with other aides, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest in oversight.
Historic preservation groups have voiced strong opposition to the demolition. Rebecca Miller, executive director of the DC Preservation League, called for an immediate halt, criticizing the lack of public input and formal submission of plans for review. She emphasized that the public and commissions should have the opportunity to assess the design’s compatibility with the historic White House and mitigate impacts on the resource. The East Wing, in its current form since 1942, has long served as the main entry for visitors to social events and tours, making its loss significant.
Legal exemptions have enabled the project to proceed despite objections. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 excludes the White House from its provisions, and the Shipstead-Luce Act of 1930, which requires review for alterations to buildings facing the White House, does not apply to the White House itself. These loopholes have allowed the administration to bypass standard preservation protocols, though critics argue it tests the limits of presidential authority and sets a concerning precedent for federal landmarks.
The project began ramping up over the summer, with weekly meetings involving Trump, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, the White House Military Office, the Secret Service, and an architecture team led by McCrery Architects. Trump has been transparent about his long-standing desire for a grand ballroom, dating back about 15 years, and once it became clear he would not abandon the idea, his team rallied behind it. The ballroom’s design, showcased in renderings, features a Louis XIV-style interior similar to Mar-a-Lago, which Trump insists blends beautifully with the existing structure.
Looking ahead, the White House plans to submit construction plans to the NCPC for approval, but with demolition well underway, reversal appears unlikely. The project reflects Trump’s broader approach to exercising presidential powers and could influence how future administrations handle similar initiatives. As the demolition continues, it remains a focal point for debates on historic preservation, executive authority, and the balance between modernization and conservation in government properties.