The White House, located at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW in Washington, D.C., has served as the official residence of every president since John Adams moved there in 1800.
Donna Colson
George Washington initiated the project in 1791 with site selection and rejected a massive “palace” for a scaled-down, but still grand neoclassical design by Irish-born architect James Hoban. The gardens and grounds have seen numerous historic contributions from the likes of Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. and Rachel Lambert “Bunny” Mellon who designed the Rose Garden in 1962.
Over the years, the building has undergone significant renovations including the addition of the North and South Porticos in the 1820s and the West and East Wings in 1902, and the Oval Office in 1909. It was officially named the White House in 1901 by Theodore Roosevelt. It remains one of the most historic and iconic homes in America, if not the world.
On Oct. 20, 2025, the Trump administration began demolition of the White House East Wing in a significant departure from the required federal review process. The offices of the First Lady, the Presidential Emergency Operations and the public entrance to the “people’s house” were bulldozed with plans to build a 90,000-square-foot structure that would house offices and a new ballroom. The sudden demolition prompted outrage over the lack of public input and transparency with the gaping hole a symbol of indifference to the American people.
As a preservation leader, I am sharing this story because I continue to be concerned by this president’s blatant disregard for rules and I want to share a meaningful way for people to participate in this conversation.
Recommended for you
In mid-December of 2025, the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed suit in federal court alleging the “ballroom” project did not undergo the required independent design reviews, lacked congressional authorization, and ignored environmental assessment requirements. On Jan. 22, 2026, a federal judge initially questioned if the administration had the statutory authority to complete this work, but then on Thursday, Feb. 26, the judge abruptly declined the NTHP’s request for a preliminary injunction to halt construction on legal grounds until a compliant process was complete, but suggested that if the trust amended their complaint he would consider it expeditiously. The trust has indicated it will amend its complaint.
Concurrent with this legal wrangling, the National Capital Planning Commission is scheduled to meet March 5 to review the White House East Wing Modernization and accept public input on the design. The trust is not suggesting that a ballroom is unnecessary, but rather that there is a process to follow, and the scope and scale of the massive ballroom dwarf the White House and significantly impact important historical elements of the original site. The current ballroom size might be comparable in scale to your neighbor installing a 10-car two-story garage in front of their house. The American people deserve an opportunity to weigh in on a home that transcends presidents and parties. The ramifications of these decisions will carry on for years and one can imagine each new president having full authority to demolish and rebuild any element of the White House with no public input in an unending cycle of partisanship.
The NTHP has posted a video explaining its concerns regarding the architectural integrity of the new ballroom design and have made several suggestions to improve the space efficiency, enhance the aesthetic and reduce the massing. This information is posted at the top of the NTHP website https://savingplaces.org and includes a link to provide public comment to the NCPC prior to March 4 at 9 a.m. PST. I encourage everyone to watch the video and use this opportunity to participate in the democratic process.
Several years ago I had the chance to visit the White House. The beauty and importance of this national treasure inspired me and gave me a profound sense of patriotism while being immersed in the history and stories of our nation. The American public deserves an opportunity to comment on major White House renovations. Even if this is not your top concern with the administration, it is an official opportunity to provide input on the record. Your voice can become an important part of history because when millions of Americans speak up the administration should take note and then we might have a chance at a democratic solution for the most iconic home in our nation.
Donna Colson is on the Board of Directors for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. She is also a member of the Burlingame City Council. Views are her own.
Thanks for your letter, Ms. Colson, but with everything else going on in America, especially with Democrats putting the welfare of criminals and terrorists over the American people. Didn’t you see the SOTU speech where Democrats refused to stand for law and order? This Big Beautiful Ballroom “fight” is another feeble attempt to “get Trump” and stop him from restoring greatness to one of our nation’s historic buildings. Instead of besmirching the reputation of the NTHP with this ridiculous fight, wouldn’t it be better for the NTHP to recommend historic features be implemented, if they haven’t already, to the ballroom? That would be a greater use of the NTHP’s time and resources.
Many presidents and non-presidents before Trump have always wanted a ballroom and Trump is delivering at no cost to taxpayers. And the American people did comment on major White House renovations when the majority of voters voted to re-elect Trump. The Big Beautiful Ballroom will be treasured and valued addition. Of course, if Democrats and those of like mind don’t like the ballroom, there’s no law forcing them to use it. BTW, did the NTHP object to the two new 100-foot-tall flag poles to the North and South lawns? Is there a lawsuit against the Triumphal Arch?
If one takes the time to read the Op-Ed and review the suggested links, that is exactly what the NTHP has done - made practical suggestions for a ballroom addition that complements 250 years of history and can be practical for use. They have also requested compliance with federal procedures now and in the future. This is not a partisan issue. The board includes representatives from both parties.
Thank you, Gamergirl, for the helpful advice to take the time to read the Op-ED, which I already had. However, I didn’t invest time in the suggested links because they are non-factors. If the issue is truly a matter of input, why is there need for continued “legal wrangling” after the initial loss to halt construction of the ballroom? You write, “The trust is not suggesting that a ballroom is unnecessary…” so why not allow the project to move forward? Why not attend the National Capital Planning Commission and provide the NTHP’s opinion of which historical elements they feel should be incorporated. There’s no need to amend the lawsuit. BTW, I don’t believe the NHPA review process applies to the White House so…was the NTHP’s “legal wrangling” destined to fail?
You say the NTHP board includes representatives from both parties but how many on the board have contributed to Democrat vs. Republican candidates? I could be wrong but I’m betting there’s a leftist bias. Ballroom outrage appears only to be from a small, perhaps very small, minority, and mostly, if not all, from the left. I’d bet the vast majority of people on any side of the aisle have no issues with a free ballroom.
For everyone involved, especially the NTHP’s reputation, stop resisting and let the project continue. If you/NTHP aren’t happy with some historical elements, the NTHP can spend time and donor money for more “legal wrangling” to force a remodel although I’m unsure how many donors to NTHP are happy their donations were wasted in failed attempts to “get Trump.” There are bigger issues to deal with. Like the Arc de Trump (although again, I’m betting the vast majority are okay with it) especially since, like the Big Beautiful Ballroom, it’s free from taxpayer funding.
I seem to recall an episode of "American Pickers" wherein building material was discovered to come from a major WH renovation during the Truman years. The author may not want to acknowledge that Truman was a Democrat and had to move out to the Blair House for the duration of the total gutting and reconstruction of the WH's interior. Had she been there, I can't imagine her hissy fit. Come on, this is a fabulous, long overdue addition to a WH that actually appears quite anemic compared with the palatial splendor of far less important world leaders.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(4) comments
Thanks for your letter, Ms. Colson, but with everything else going on in America, especially with Democrats putting the welfare of criminals and terrorists over the American people. Didn’t you see the SOTU speech where Democrats refused to stand for law and order? This Big Beautiful Ballroom “fight” is another feeble attempt to “get Trump” and stop him from restoring greatness to one of our nation’s historic buildings. Instead of besmirching the reputation of the NTHP with this ridiculous fight, wouldn’t it be better for the NTHP to recommend historic features be implemented, if they haven’t already, to the ballroom? That would be a greater use of the NTHP’s time and resources.
Many presidents and non-presidents before Trump have always wanted a ballroom and Trump is delivering at no cost to taxpayers. And the American people did comment on major White House renovations when the majority of voters voted to re-elect Trump. The Big Beautiful Ballroom will be treasured and valued addition. Of course, if Democrats and those of like mind don’t like the ballroom, there’s no law forcing them to use it. BTW, did the NTHP object to the two new 100-foot-tall flag poles to the North and South lawns? Is there a lawsuit against the Triumphal Arch?
If one takes the time to read the Op-Ed and review the suggested links, that is exactly what the NTHP has done - made practical suggestions for a ballroom addition that complements 250 years of history and can be practical for use. They have also requested compliance with federal procedures now and in the future. This is not a partisan issue. The board includes representatives from both parties.
Thank you, Gamergirl, for the helpful advice to take the time to read the Op-ED, which I already had. However, I didn’t invest time in the suggested links because they are non-factors. If the issue is truly a matter of input, why is there need for continued “legal wrangling” after the initial loss to halt construction of the ballroom? You write, “The trust is not suggesting that a ballroom is unnecessary…” so why not allow the project to move forward? Why not attend the National Capital Planning Commission and provide the NTHP’s opinion of which historical elements they feel should be incorporated. There’s no need to amend the lawsuit. BTW, I don’t believe the NHPA review process applies to the White House so…was the NTHP’s “legal wrangling” destined to fail?
You say the NTHP board includes representatives from both parties but how many on the board have contributed to Democrat vs. Republican candidates? I could be wrong but I’m betting there’s a leftist bias. Ballroom outrage appears only to be from a small, perhaps very small, minority, and mostly, if not all, from the left. I’d bet the vast majority of people on any side of the aisle have no issues with a free ballroom.
For everyone involved, especially the NTHP’s reputation, stop resisting and let the project continue. If you/NTHP aren’t happy with some historical elements, the NTHP can spend time and donor money for more “legal wrangling” to force a remodel although I’m unsure how many donors to NTHP are happy their donations were wasted in failed attempts to “get Trump.” There are bigger issues to deal with. Like the Arc de Trump (although again, I’m betting the vast majority are okay with it) especially since, like the Big Beautiful Ballroom, it’s free from taxpayer funding.
I seem to recall an episode of "American Pickers" wherein building material was discovered to come from a major WH renovation during the Truman years. The author may not want to acknowledge that Truman was a Democrat and had to move out to the Blair House for the duration of the total gutting and reconstruction of the WH's interior. Had she been there, I can't imagine her hissy fit. Come on, this is a fabulous, long overdue addition to a WH that actually appears quite anemic compared with the palatial splendor of far less important world leaders.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.