Sorry, but I struggle to get outraged about Trump’s White House renos

By now you have probably been bombarded by coverage of Donald Trump sending the wrecking ball through the East Wing of the White House. It has been hard to miss the anger about the swift demolition, and the US president’s plans to replace the structure with a new ballroom and office space.

An overwhelming view seems to be that the demo job is a metaphor for what Trump is doing to the country more broadly: trashing institutions and smashing up norms and principles once thought sacred.

As a close watcher of American politics and a fan of architecture, I have followed the story closely. And I have to confess that I struggle to share the outrage.

It was pretty obvious from the moment that Trump released his plans for the ballroom in July that the East Wing was not long for this world. It was clear from sketches released at the time that incorporating the older building into the much larger ballroom was incompatible.

The East Wing as it stood until last week was built in the early 1940s and served as the entry point to the White House for tours and contained the office of the first lady. It was connected to the Executive Residence – the central building known around the globe – by the East Colonnade, a long corridor which also housed a small movie theatre for the first family. While it formed part of the famous White House complex, the wing itself did not have a huge amount of architectural merit.

Iconic buildings evolve and adapt – sometimes for the better, sometimes for worse. The construction of a giant security fence across the sloped green roof of Parliament House in Canberra was definitely an act of architectural vandalism. But the modernisation of Notre-Dame cathedral after the terrible 2019 fire is a triumph, and the Palace of Westminster in London didn’t always have the Elizabeth Tower (commonly referred to as Big Ben). It’s also difficult to picture the centuries-old Louvre in Paris without its central glass pyramid, which was only added in 1989 to better handle growing visitor numbers.

As others have pointed out, the White House has changed significantly over the years. The residence was gutted and reconstructed between 1949 and 1952, the West Wing’s iconic Oval Office wasn’t built until the 1930s, and the semicircular Truman Balcony wasn’t added until the late 1940s.

There has also been a lot of hysteria over the gold bling Trump has added to nearly every surface of the Oval Office. Sure it’s ugly, but so what? All presidents put their design stamp on the room and the next president will do the same.

There is a good case for modernising the composition of the White House. The State Dining Room can host just 140 guests (about as many as a standard wedding) and the East Room’s capacity is only marginally better at 200. For state dinners and other events with more swollen guest lists, a giant tent has to be set up on the lawns outside the building, at great expense. People I know who have been in these tents reckon they’re pretty flash, and not exactly the type you’d pick up from BCF or Anaconda. But the giant tent is still a little embarrassing, and impractical.

I know all this will probably be an unpopular view with some readers. But there has been support for what Trump is doing in some quarters. In a piece titled “In defence of the White House ballroom”, The Washington Post editorial board said that in classic Trump fashion, “the president is pursuing a reasonable idea in the most jarring manner possible”.

“Privately, many alumni of the Biden and Obama White Houses acknowledge the long-overdue need for an event space like what Trump is creating,” the board said.

“Preservationists express horror that Trump did not submit his plans to their scrutiny, but the truth is this project would not have gotten done – certainly not during his term – if the president had gone through the traditional review process. The blueprints would have faced death by a thousand cuts.”

The board noted the White House had gone through many changes in its history. It also explained the tortured and long history of the modest Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial in Washington DC, which took two decades to go from authorisation to completion. “By contrast, Eisenhower planned and executed D-Day in about six months,” the Post noted.

Amazon, which was founded by the Post’s owner Jeff Bezos, is one of dozens of major companies that have donated to fund the ballroom’s estimated $US300 million ($457 million) cost. Microsoft, Apple, Meta, Google, and NBCUniversal parent company Comcast are among the others stumping up.

For me, a final view on whether Trump’s big build is a good or bad thing will come down to the execution of it, rather than the idea itself.

I have also found it jarring that there has been more outrage over the demolition of a relatively boring building than there has been concerning Trump’s open musings about running for a third term, which is prohibited under the Constitution.

As the White House reno debate raged on the ground, a reporter aboard Air Force One asked Trump on Tuesday about the prospect of serving a third term, and whether he could potentially run as vice president and then slide into the presidency again after the 2028 election.

Trump gushed that he’d “love to” serve a third term and even suggested he had been given advice that the vice president switcheroo ploy would be legal. He did, though, then acknowledge that wouldn’t pass the pub test and he wouldn’t seek to do it.

Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, has also told The Economist there was a plan to get around the pesky 22nd amendment – which limits a president from serving more than two terms of four years. “At the appropriate time, we’ll lay out what the plan is,” he said. “But there is a plan.”

Trump on Wednesday said outright that he was not allowed to run for a third term. But his continued flirtation with the idea earlier in the week, when any other president wouldn’t entertain it, was unsettling.

Surely, an assault on the 22nd amendment should be the source of more outrage than the construction of a fancy new ballroom.

Thanks for reading and have a great weekend.