New date for White House ballroom vote amid deluge of angry comments

A vote on President Donald Trump’s plans for a $400 million White House ballroom was rescheduled after a commission in charge of deciding the project was deluged with more than 35,000 written comments and 104 people wanting to testify at a public hearing.

Will Scharf, chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission who was appointed by Trump, said at the public hearing on March 5 that the vote would be taken at the commission's next meeting on April 2 to accommodate every member of the public who had signed up for a chance to speak. The NCPC, the overseer of federal property development and site designs, continued to hold the online public hearing on March 5 to hear from droves of people − most of them with negative opinion − signed up to speak or reached out via email.

Stephen Staudigl, spokesperson for the NCPC, told USA TODAY that the vast majority of responses received via email have expressed negative opinions about the ballroom, and a USA TODAY cursory review found many angry responses, calling the ballroom idea gaudy, expensive, aggrandizing and unnecessary.

The commission's public meeting offered a window into the public’s view of the project, which led to the demolition of the White House's East Wing. Apart from Scharf, the White House staff secretary, the 12-member commission board also includes two other White House officials.

Bryan Clark Green, an architectural historian, was among the first to speak during the online hearing. He said the current plan for the 90,000 square foot ballroom would "permanently and adversely" alter the character of the White House complex.

"The three cascading south stairs have no precedent on the campus and rival the South Portico’s more modest steps. The proposed east and south porticos, with large Corinthian columns, compete with the Executive Mansion’s smaller, finer Ionic order," he said. "Column size, count, and spacing draw attention from the Mansion rather than frame it. These are not programmatic necessities; they are choices."

He said the NCPC should require removal of nonessential features and mandate "revisions to orders, proportions, and spacing so the addition supports, rather than overshadows, the historic core."

People from across the nation sent written comments by email to the planning commission after it solicited comments. An online portal, which opened Feb. 12, also allowed people to register to speak.

Since Trump's ballroom project was first announced by the White House in July, it has undergone numerous changes on financing, seating capacity and cost. The price tag jumped from $200 million to $400 million, and the ballroom is now expected to accommodate 1,000 people.

Many citizens object to the ballroom

"How could he just 'do that' without consent from you or Congress? PLEASE don't let him get away with him building this addition, gold plated monstrosity as it will be a replica of his 'gold plated lifestyle' which is disgusting," Penny Jarret wrote.

The project was "initiated without the proper authorization, permits, or design review. It is not a modernization project but rather a complete razing of American history. I want this project canceled, and the East Wing rebuilt and restored to its former design," Patricia Abrego wrote.

"The East Wing ballroom is unnecessary beyond the pale," Tim Cobb wrote. "This President’s insecurity and insatiable narcissism is nakedly apparent in this project, to say nothing of his absurd Arch de Trump. I could not disagree more with this boondoggle."

Last month, the Commission of Fine Arts, a panel whose members Trump appointed in January, unanimously approved a plan for a 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom. The two commissions are the only two agencies charged with reviewing construction of the controversial project.

Commission of Fine Arts Secretary Thomas Luebke said 99% of the 2,000 comments it received had been negative.

Similarly, the National Capital Planning Commission "received a substantial number of public comments on the project, the majority in opposition to the project," Staudigl told USA TODAY.

Finding positive comments in the reams of paper was the equivalent of searching for a needle in a haystack. But they do exist.

Anne Nieman, a supporter of the project, wrote that her father had been a prominent preservation architect in Alabama.

"A grand ballroom for the White House has been a vision of many past administrations. It is, frankly, an embarrassment that world leaders come to the greatest country on earth only to be welcomed in a giant wedding tent with porta-potties, no matter how fancily they may be outfitted," she wrote. "Taxpayers should be grateful that private contributors who have been very successful in America are willing to donate the funds to bring this much needed addition to our capital complex. It will provide enhanced security and comfort for our leaders and guests and show them the dignity deserved in grand American style."

 Greg Sullivan, a landscape architect, wrote in favor of the president’s project.

"I voted for our president and what he is bringing to the White House," Sullivan wrote. "He will do an awesome job on this much needed addition useful by all subsequent administrations."

After the East Wing was demolished in October, without warning and leading to a public outcry, the White House argued that under federal law the 12-member capital planning commission reviews only construction projects, not demolitions of existing buildings.

Most Americans oppose Trump’s plans to construct a 90,000 square-foot ballroom, according to a poll taken the week after the demolition of the East Wing.

A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found 56% of Americans oppose the demolition and ballroom project ‒ including 45% who said they "strongly oppose" it. Meanwhile, 28% of respondents said they support the plans.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires reviews of projects that affect most historic buildings, but the White House, Supreme Court building and U.S. Capitol are exempt.

In December, the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a federal lawsuit aimed at stopping the construction, saying that the project needs congressional approval and that its size would "overwhelm the White House itself."

The case was rejected by a federal judge, who said the organization did not sufficiently prove the president was exceeding his powers. Rather, it based its challenge "on a ragtag group of theories" under federal law and the Constitution. Still, he said, the court would consider additional efforts if the group decided to amend its complaint.

The preservation group has followed up by filing an amended lawsuit accusing the administration of violating federal laws by proceeding without obtaining the required approvals.

During the public hearing on March 5, Carol Quillen, president and CEO of the National Trust, urged the NCPC board members to move deliberately.

"That you engage seriously with ideas offered by the tens of thousands of architects, planners, scholars, and patriotic citizens who have submitted comments. These people are worth hearing out. The American people have good ideas," she said. "We know you can build a 1,000-person ballroom that, unlike the plan currently under review, truly honors the iconic status, the primacy, and the historic significance of the People’s House. Comments submitted to you show how this could be done."

Trump’s team countered in court that the president did not need approval from lawmakers because the project is not using taxpayer dollars and instead is being funded by private donations.

Democratic lawmakers have raised alarms about accepting money from companies with business before the federal government.

"Trump’s gold-encrusted ballroom has become a vehicle for corruption," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts. Donors include Palantir, Lockheed Martin and Meta, according to a list provided by the White House.

Kathleen McCleary of Norther Virginia asked in her written comments: "Why do we the people have no say in this? Why are we concerned with a giant ballroom for lavish parties when the wealth gap in this country is enormous? This project should be STOPPED."

This story has been updated to add new information.

Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is a White House correspondent for USA TODAY. You can follow her on X @SwapnaVenugopal