Over the past several weeks, President Donald Trump’s sweeping renovations and new construction projects at the White House have ignited a fierce debate among architects, historians, and political commentators alike. With bulldozers tearing down the historic East Wing in late October 2025 and a cavernous ballroom rising in its place, critics and supporters are left to wonder: what exactly is motivating these dramatic changes to America’s most iconic residence?
According to Architect Magazine, the scale and design of the new ballroom are nothing short of “horrendous.” Aaron Betsky, a prominent critic, minced no words in his November 2, 2025, analysis, describing the addition as “bad, both in terms of its scale and the basic traits architects are supposed to be good at producing, such as proportion, spatial sequence, detailing, and ornament.” For Betsky, the process by which the ballroom is being constructed is not just misguided, but “probably criminal.”
Yet, Betsky is quick to point out that the East Wing itself was never a masterpiece. Originally designed by James Hoban, the White House has been expanded and altered so many times that its proportions and detailing have become muddled. “It was designed by a middling architect, James Hoban, as an overblown home,” Betsky notes, adding that the building’s many renovations have rendered it “the ultimate proof that it does not matter how classical or traditional a building is if it is just not that good in its bones.”
Despite its architectural flaws, the White House remains a beloved symbol—a fixture on currency, postcards, and television screens. Betsky concedes that the central, original wing at least possesses “some measure of grandeur,” but laments that the constant additions, including the infamous porticoes, have only served to overwhelm the original structure. “If you really wanted to make the White House great, I would tear down all the additions and put them underground or somewhere else altogether,” he remarks.
The new ballroom, however, represents a turning point. According to the Daily Mirror, the demolition of the East Wing and the subsequent construction of the ballroom occurred just as the U.S. government was shut down over a contentious budget and welfare funding dispute. With hundreds of thousands of Americans missing paychecks and struggling to feed their families, the President’s focus on lavish White House projects has struck many as tone-deaf. “Much of Trump’s attention appears directed at the variety of lavish building projects, refurbishments and ‘upgrades’ he’s launched in the White House—and wider Washington DC,” the Daily Mirror reported.
One particularly controversial aspect of the renovations is the transformation of the White House Rose Garden. Once a living testament to Jacqueline Kennedy’s vision and the backdrop of countless historical moments, it has now been paved over with white marble. Trump has even installed yellow and white umbrellas reminiscent of his Mar-a-Lago resort, further blurring the lines between presidential residence and private luxury club.
Perhaps most eyebrow-raising of all are Trump’s boasts about the bathroom refurbishment attached to the Lincoln Bedroom. As the Daily Mirror recounted, he posted two dozen photos of the new en suite online, bragging about replacing the Harry Truman-era turquoise art deco tiling with polished Italian marble. Trump claimed the update was “totally in keeping” with the era of Abraham Lincoln—a statement historians quickly dismissed as bizarre. Not only was Lincoln’s White House relatively austere, featuring wood fittings and tin bathtubs, but the Lincoln Bedroom itself wasn’t even named until the 1960s.
All of this raises the question: why is Trump investing so much in these permanent changes, especially when, as the Daily Mirror observed, “Trump only has three years left of his term. If the ballroom is complete by the time his presidency ends, it will be a miracle.” The same skepticism surrounds the President’s plans for a massive triumphal archway—nicknamed the Arc de Trump—slated for construction near the Lincoln Memorial in honor of the nation’s 250th anniversary. Officially called the Independence Arch, the monument’s design and location have drawn sharp criticism from Betsky, who argues that it lacks a meaningful axis and is more a vanity project than a national statement. “Its erection is not at face value such a bad idea. The location calls out for a monument, however isolated it is by traffic,” Betsky writes, but adds that “the biggest formal problem with the arch as a proposed form is that there is no real axis for it to mark and thus frame an army led by our Duce to march down and under this gateway into a democracy.”
For Betsky and others, the arch and the ballroom are less about national celebration and more about personal aggrandizement. “We may well have an arch, which will also act, as the ballroom has, as a bribing opportunity for donors looking for favors from this President,” Betsky speculates. He laments the lack of a formal design competition or transparent selection process, noting that Trump has already showcased a model of the monument he wants. “Let’s hope we can get rid of him and it before the arch is constructed,” he concludes.
Yet, the symbolism of these projects extends beyond aesthetics and process. The Daily Mirror suggests that Trump’s relentless push for renovations may signal intentions to remain in power beyond 2028, despite his oft-stated dislike for Washington, D.C., and his previous description of the White House as a “dump.” “Is it possible he’s putting so much effort into remodelling the White House, and Washington, because he plans to stay there much longer than three years?” the paper asks, echoing widespread speculation.
Meanwhile, the contrast between the government shutdown’s impact on ordinary Americans and the extravagant spending on White House upgrades has not gone unnoticed. Critics argue that the priorities reflected in these projects are out of step with the needs of the country, especially at a time of economic uncertainty and political division.
Supporters of the President, however, contend that the renovations are intended to leave a lasting legacy for future generations, enhancing the functionality and grandeur of the executive residence. They point out that previous presidents have also made significant changes to the White House, and that the addition of a ballroom is, if not necessary, at least a logical improvement for state functions.
As the dust settles—both literally and figuratively—on the White House’s changing landscape, the debate over Trump’s architectural legacy is far from over. Whether these additions will be remembered as visionary improvements or symbols of excess and vanity remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the nation’s most famous address will never look quite the same again.
