Somehow, the worst of us have taken over, and miserable, cruel souls that they are, they have dragged us down to their level. Like tyrants before them, engorged with the thrill of exercising unimaginable power, they have dedicated themselves to systematically banishing care and concern, empathy and sympathy. They are determined to destroy the best in us.

It is quite clear by now that they do not care a whit about the poor, the infirm, or the disadvantaged. They seem to take glory in corruption. Not a murmur from the supine Republicans when President Donald Trump tramples on tradition, demolishes portions of the White House, and for what? As time is running out on his rule, Ozymandias-like, he rushes to erect monuments to his transitory and pathetic rule. A tasteless ballroom for clumsy imaginary kings and queens? I ask you, how many of those graceless MAGAcans can even manage a waltz with a minimum of grace.

My mind a bit weary, I decided to relent in the face of the growing movement to embrace artificial intelligence and asked a couple of them what they thought of Donald Trump’s dancing. First, I asked Elon Musk’s Grok: “How would you describe Donald Trump dancing ability?” No fool, this Grok. I am sure, quite aware that Musk could delete him/her/them/it in a heartbeat, Grok was not about to head for any politically treacherous cliffs:

Trump’s dancing ability is best described as ‘enthusiastic dad energy’ — memorable, repetitive, and unapologetically his own. He has a very specific signature move that’s become known as the ‘Trump dance’:

Upper body focus: Bent arms with clenched fists, pumping or jerking them forward and back (almost like a subdued boxing motion or elliptical trainer arms).

Lower body: Side-to-side hip sways or rocking, with minimal fancy footwork. His feet often stay pretty planted.

Overall vibe: It’s simple, rhythmic in a basic way, and always done with a big smile and high energy, usually to Village People’s ‘YMCA’ at the end of rallies. It’s not graceful, technically skilled, or coordinated like a trained dancer. Body language experts have called it dominant, aggressive, repetitive, and very ‘on brand’ for him —

Forgive me, but Grok is a Musk wuss. Trump dance? A big smile? Has Grok really watched the president clump around while somehow managing to completely misplace the beat? Dance? His arms are cluelessly flailing. I have a feeling he is secretly imagining partnering with Stephen Miller to deport, if not imprison, all of America’s gay, lesbian, trans, and migrant residents, citizens or not. Not to mention Colbert or those who once worked for CBS’ “60 Minutes.” And, of course, the Village People.

Meanwhile, these MAGA folks, unconcerned, untouched by the slightest sense of responsibility, are glad to force their constituents, already reeling from rent increases, rising gas prices, and the cost of a bag of groceries, and, yes, a basic cup of coffee to now pay for a ballroom no one with a working brain or heart even wants. A ballroom, I am betting, none of these clumsy non-dancers even deserve. And yet, the beat goes on:

July 31, 2025, White House statement. Used under Fair Use provisions of U.S. Copyright Law. Highlighting added.

According to the White House:

For 150 years, Presidents, Administrations, and White House Staff have longed for a large event space on the White House complex that can hold substantially more guests than currently allowed. President Donald J. Trump has expressed his commitment to solving this problem on behalf of future Administrations and the American people.

The White House is one of the most beautiful and historic buildings in the world, yet the White House is currently unable to host major functions honoring world leaders and other countries without having to install a large and unsightly tent approximately 100 yards away from the main building entrance. The White House State Ballroom will be a much-needed and exquisite addition of approximately 90,000 total square feet of ornately designed and carefully crafted space, with a seated capacity of 650 people — a significant increase from the 200-person seated capacity in the East Room of the White House …

The project will begin in September 2025, and it is expected to be completed long before the end of President Trump’s term. President Trump, and other patriot donors, have generously committed to donating the funds necessary to build this approximately $200 million dollar structure. The United States Secret Service will provide the necessary security enhancements and modifications.

The White House Ballroom will be substantially separated from the main building of the White House, but at the same time, it’s theme and architectural heritage will be almost identical. The site of the new ballroom will be where the small, heavily changed, and reconstructed East Wing currently sits. The East Wing was constructed in 1902 and has been renovated and changed many times, with a second story added in 1942.

The White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said the following: ‘President Trump is a builder at heart and has an extraordinary eye for detail. The President and the Trump White House are fully committed to working with the appropriate organizations to preserving the special history of the White House while building a beautiful ballroom that can be enjoyed by future Administrations and generations of Americans to come.’

[Emphasis added.]

So much for the best case, delivered with a strong dose of the administration’s political propaganda. First off, I, for one, never experienced the lack of a ballroom as a problem. So, while President Donald J. Trump tells us that he is solving this problem for the American people, I say he should have let us live a bit longer with this problem—a problem he imagines he has “solved” by ripping apart the East Wing of the White House. Crazy king that he has become, he lacks any understanding of the impact he has had on the world stage. He claims his ballroom will be “a transformative addition that will significantly increase the White House’s capacity to host major functions honoring world leaders, foreign nations, and other dignitaries.”

Aerial view of the White House showing the demolished East Wing. Photo by Edward Johnson. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

Is it possible he just doesn’t remember trashing all those leaders or insulting all those countries—even all those countries he has destabilized. Has he forgotten how he has consistently made life more difficult for their people, with his unnecessary and burdensome tariffs? Is he just ignoring the drastic impact he has made by invading and bombing Iran? Or Iran’s response to close the Strait of Hormuz? Exactly how many people, except Vladimir Putin and Bibi Netanyahu, will want to waltz with Donald Trump?

It turns out it was just too much to ask those who participate in the authoritarian impulse to resist his king-like need to destroy our White House, too much to expect that those who bomb Iranian schools and bridges and curtail the promotion of life-saving childhood vaccines would consult with us and Congress before appropriating a public space to ensure the administration is making that space better, not worse. Oh, what a world that would be. But, in fact, our tasteless king, like those many delusional monarchs before him, is determined to build clumsy monuments to his outsized ego.

Thankfully, the folks at the National Historic Trust were appalled and took action:

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which was chartered by Congress in 1949 to facilitate public participation in the preservation of sites of national significance, filed a suit today in the US District Court for the District of Columbia against various individuals and agencies of the government asserting that ongoing construction of the White House ballroom is unlawful and asking the court to halt further construction activities until the government complies with the law by going through the legally mandated review processes, including a public comment period.

‘The White House is arguably the most evocative building in our country and a globally recognized symbol of our powerful American ideals. As the organization charged with protecting places where our history happened, the National Trust was compelled to file this case,’ said Carol Quillen, President and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. ‘Submitting the project to the National Capital Planning Commission for review protects the iconic historic features of the White House campus as it evolves. Inviting comments from the American people signals respect and helps ensure a lasting legacy that befits a government of the people, by the people, for the people.’

The suit was filed on December 12, 2025:

National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service. Highlighting added.

The Trust explains its position:

The filing makes several claims: construction has commenced even though plans have not yet been filed with the National Capital Planning Commission as required by the National Capital Planning Act; no adequate public environmental assessment or Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and Congress has not yet authorized construction of the building as it is required to do when construction is proposed in any federal park in the District of Columbia (the White House sits in The White House and President’s Park).

In addition, the filing argues that the President, in disregarding these laws, is violating the Property Clause of the Constitution, which reserves to Congress the right to dispose of and make all rules regarding property belonging to the United States.

In mid-October, the National Trust submitted a letter to the National Capital Planning Commission, the National Park Service, and the Commission of Fine Arts calling for a pause in construction until the legally mandated review processes were completed. The National Trust acknowledged the utility of a larger meeting space but raised concerns that the massing and height of the proposed new construction would overwhelm the White House itself and permanently disrupt its carefully balanced classic design, citing the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, which offer clear guidance for construction projects affecting historic properties.

The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) was established by Congress in 1924. Their website states:

[The NCPC] is the federal government’s central planning agency for the National Capital Region. Through planning, policymaking, and project review, NCPC protects and advances the federal government’s interest in the region’s development. The Commission provides overall planning guidance for federal land and buildings in the region by reviewing the design of federal and certain local projects, overseeing long-range planning for future development, and monitoring capital investment by federal agencies.

Of the more than 32,000 comments made to the NCPC, about 98 percent were in opposition.

Here are just a few of the public comments the NCPC received:

Michele Lagueux: I grew up near Washington, D.C. I visited the White House many times as a child. I wept when I saw the rubble where once stood the beautiful East Wing that welcomed visitors from around the world to the nation’s capital, to the Peoples’ House, The White House. Trump has no legal authority to make alterations to the White House without proper authorization. He has not sought approval or permission for the destruction of the East Wing. Stop him now before he destroys more of our historic buildings. Require him to restore the East Wing.

Paul Tomlinson: Stop President Trump from trampling on our history. Rebuild the East Wing to its original historic design.

Kendra Caudill: To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally object to the proposed destruction of the East Wing of the White House. Such an action represents a clear violation of the law, an abuse of power, and a profound disregard for the historic significance of this national landmark. The White House is not merely a residence—it is a symbol of our nation’s continuity, democratic values, and shared history. Altering it for the purpose of creating a gaudy, personalized palace for a would‑be oligarch or dictator undermines the integrity of the office and disrespects the generations of Americans who look to this building as a representation of our republic. I urge all responsible authorities to halt this effort immediately and uphold the legal and historical protections that safeguard the White House from misuse.

Ellis Cohen: The current President’s plan for tearing down the East Wing (and the destruction that has already been wrought) are both horrifying and illegal. Although the White House has served as a temporary home for incumbent US Presidents since 1800, this National Historic Landmark and National Park is owned by the American people. No US President is the owner of the property or the structures thereon; the president is a temporary tenant whose interventions are limited by law and by respect for the people of the United States.

The demolition of the historic East Wing without review, without permits and without Congressional oversight was clearly illegal. In addition, it is a violation of the trust of the American people who were given no opportunity to comment on what should have been presented as a proposal. I urge the National Capital Planning Commission to require reconstruction of the East Wing back to its former size and design. Anything constructed on the demolition site going forward must be compatible in form and subordinate in scale to the original structure of the Executive Mansion.

On January 30, 2026, we learned that Donald Trump had appointed seven new members to make up the United States Commission on Fine Arts (CFA). Then, on February 19, 2026, the administration appeared before the CFA to present drawings and its plan for its East Wing Modernization Project and ballroom addition. Here are images of the proposed project from two different angles:

White House East Wing Modernization North Lawn, looking southeast. Public domain. Highlighting added.
White House East Wing Modernization ballroom view, looking southwest. Public domain. Highlighting added.

I know how much President Trump admires Vladimir Putin, but do we really need to incorporate a bland, Soviet-style version of classical architectural design to dwarf our White House?

In response to the CFA’s acceptance of the plans for the ballroom, Carol Quillen, the president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, issued this statement:

We were puzzled this morning when the US Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) approved the concept plans for the proposed White House ballroom, and then, in a second vote—without any advance public notice—also approved the final plans, which had neither been presented nor reviewed.

In doing so, CFA bypassed its obligation to provide serious design review and consider the views of the American people, including the over 99% of public comments (out of 2,000 submissions) that expressed opposition to the current design and offered valuable suggestions on how it might be improved.

To be clear, the National Trust has always acknowledged the utility of a larger White House meeting space to replace outdoor tents. However, we remain deeply concerned that the size, location, and massing of this proposal will overwhelm the carefully balanced classical design of the White House, a symbol of our democratic republic.

As we look towards the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) meeting on March 5th, we urge NCPC to follow and respect the spirit of the review process, to consider public comments, and to preserve the historic integrity and symbolism of the People’s House for future generations.

Architect David Scott Parker also submitted comments to the CFA:

As a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects and a practicing architect for the past 36 years, I write to oppose the current White House ballroom plans and offer several design alternatives to preserve the historic integrity and symbolism of the People’s House.

The massing, height, scale, and especially the volume of the proposed 90,000 square-foot construction will overwhelm the 55,000-square-foot central structure and disrupt the carefully balanced classical design of the White House, with its East and West wings. Classicism is predicated on overall symmetry.

David Scott Parker then offered these detailed concerns:

The scale of the proposed South Portico is too large; as is currently designed, the proposed ballroom South Portico is 166% larger than the current White House Portico and 40% larger than Treasury’s South Portico.

The architectural industry high standard space for ballrooms is 15 sq. ft. per person (and the low standard is 10 sq. ft. per person). The proposed ballroom is being designed for 1000 people, which means the ballroom should be 15,000 sq. ft. The proposed ballroom is estimated at 22,000 sq. ft, which makes it 47% larger than the industry high standard.

The current ballroom structure is estimated at approximately 2.36 million cubic feet. The original White House structure was approximately 794,000 cubic feet. Square footage comparisons can be misleading regarding the overall size of a structure; however, in this case, the proposed ballroom massing is nearly three times the original White House volume. The volume and oversized massing challenge the classicism on which the White House is based. Classicism is predicated on balance and symmetry, and the central main structure should always be the largest.

[Emphasis added.]

David Scott Parker added these critical concerns:

Comments submitted by David Scott Parker, FAIA to U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. Used under Fair Use provisions of U.S. Copyright Law. Highlighting added.

Building a structure that is deliberately oversized and dwarfs the adjacent structure seems par for the course for our tasteless king from Queens, a man habitually addicted to bullying others and lambasting his perceived critics in an avalanche of public insults.

It seems so obviously ironic that the money we once contributed to improving and saving the lives of the less fortunate is now, following in the footsteps of Ozymandias, being wasted on the president’s massively excessive “colossal wreck, boundless and bare.”

ABC News, Oct. 22, 2025. Used under Fair Use provisions of U.S. Copyright Law. Highlighting added.

As ABC News has reported:

President Donald Trump says he has no plans to name his $300 million White House ballroom after himself. Speaking to reporters in brief remarks while departing the White House on Friday evening for a trip to Asia, Trump denied an earlier report that he was likely to add his name to the new ballroom.

‘I don’t have any plan to call it after myself,’ Trump said. ‘That was fake news. Probably going to call it the presidential ballroom or something like that. We haven’t really thought about a name yet.’

Earlier, senior administration officials told ABC News that some in the administration were already referring to it as ‘The President Donald J. Trump Ballroom’ and that that name was likely to stick.

The White House claims they have released the full list of donors to the project. On a list of those donors, provided to ABC News by the White House, the ballroom is referred to as ‘the President Donald J. Trump Ballroom.’

Before Friday, Trump had not publicly said what he intends to name the ballroom, but he is known for branding his construction projects after himself. When asked by ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce on Thursday if he had a name for his ballroom yet, Trump smiled and said: ‘I won’t get into that now.’

The entire East Wing of the White House was demolished to make way for Trump’s 90,000-square-foot ballroom, new images showed on Thursday. A White House official confirmed to ABC News that $350 million has been raised for the ballroom project, saying the president ‘has received such positive and overwhelming support for the ballroom that he continues to receive donations.’

Asked what he plans to do with the extra $50 million, Trump told reporters Friday night it could possibly be used to help build a large triumphal arch — modeled on the Arc de Triomphe in Paris — that Trump has proposed constructing just outside Washington.

Asked by ABC News White House Correspondent Karen Travers on Thursday how much of his own money he was planning to donate to the ballroom, Trump replied, ‘Oh, millions of dollars. Yeah. Well, I also give, you know, I give a lot of money to the White House. The White House is, as you know, I give my salary, and I usually like to steer it to the White House because this house was a little bit abandoned.’

I know I was, but you, too, might be wondering what the ramifications might be when so much money is being raised from corporate America and the very wealthiest of private individuals. I thought maybe the AI folks had some important insight into the affairs of their human benefactors. This time around, I abandoned Grok for Claude and asked: “Is it a potential conflict of interest that major corporations are contributing funds to build the new ballroom next to the White House?”

Claude was not beating around the bush and, in addition to a forthright answer, suggested several other sources to check:

Yes, this is a very active and serious controversy. Here’s a summary of the key concerns:

The Project: The Trump administration demolished the White House’s historic East Wing to build a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom, privately funded through donations to the nonprofit Trust for the National Mall. The estimated cost has risen from $200 million when first announced in July 2025, to $300 million, and beyond. 37 known donors have been identified, including Silicon Valley tech giants, crypto companies, and defense contractors. Fox News and Fortune.

The Conflict of Interest Concerns: Two-thirds of the 24 known corporate donors have received federal government contracts totaling $279 billion over the last five years. Of those 24 corporate donors, 14 are facing federal enforcement actions and/or have had federal enforcement actions suspended by the Trump administration. Public Citizen.

Those donors include major antitrust actions involving Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and T-Mobile; labor rights cases involving Amazon, Apple, Caterpillar, Google, Lockheed, and Meta; and SEC matters involving Coinbase and Ripple. Together, the corporate and billionaire funders have spent $1.6 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions over the last five years. Public Citizen.

Notable Donors: Alphabet pledged $22 million of a $24.5 million settlement with Trump over his YouTube ban following the January 6 Capitol riots toward the ballroom construction. Lockheed Martin, which received $33.4 billion in federal contract awards in 2025 alone, is reportedly contributing more than $10 million. Fortune.

Government Response:Two nonprofits focused on government ethics — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Campaign Legal Center — wrote that accepting ballroom donations from companies with business before the government presents a conflict of interest, and argued Congress should appropriate money for the ballroom instead. CBS News.

Senate Democrats have demanded a complete accounting of all donations, including the amount of each contribution, which donors have existing business with the federal government, ongoing litigation, and pending regulatory approvals. Sen. Elizabeth Warren also introduced the Stop Ballroom Bribery Act to limit private donations and prevent conflicts of interest. Fox News.

The Core Question: Critics argue the donations amount to a pay-to-play arrangement. As Public Citizen put it, these corporations ‘have massive interests before the federal government and they undoubtedly hope to curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment from, the Trump administration.’ Supporters counter that the donations benefit future administrations as well. The question of whether any formal legal violations have occurred remains contested. Public Citizen

Since Claude was so obviously impressed by them, I immediately headed over to Public Citizen:

Public Citizen, Nov. 1, 2025. Used under Fair Use provisions of U.S. Copyright Law. Highlighting added.

According to the chart below from Public Citizen, you can see that those corporations contributing to the new Trump ballroom are doing a phenomenal amount of business with the government.

Public Citizen’s list of corporate donors to Trump’s ballroom with government contracts. Used under Fair Use provisions of U.S. Copyright Law. Highlighting added.

As Courthouse News reported, on March 31, 2026, Judge Richard Leon ordered a halt in the construction of the ballroom:

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked construction of President Donald Trump’s planned $400 million White House ballroom, finding no law grants him the unilateral authority to continue without congressional authorization.

Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Leon granted the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s motion for a preliminary injunction on the construction, set to begin in April, after previously denying a similar motion that argued Trump had no constitutional authority.

After the National Trust amended its complaint, Leon concluded ‘no statute come close’ to granting Trump’s claim that he has the authority to summarily demolish the White House East Wing and use private donations to construct the 90,000-square-foot ballroom.

‘The president of the United States is the steward of the White House for further generations of First Families,’ the George W. Bush appointee wrote in the 35-page opinion. ‘He is not, however, the owner!’

In its amended complaint, the National Trust argued the construction violated the National Park Service’s Organic Act, along with U.S. Code Section 105 and Section 8106. Under the Justice Department’s reading of those statutes, it assumes Congress has granted nearly unlimited power for the president to construct anything, anywhere on federal land in Washington, regardless of the source of funds.

‘This clearly is not how Congress and former presidents have managed the White House for centuries, and this court will not be the first to hold that Congress has ceded its powers in such a significant fashion!’ Leon wrote.

Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration fought back in a series of ways, appealing the court’s decision and making the claim that, in fact, the renovation and new construction had less to do with dancing and entertaining foreign dignities than it did with national security and better protecting our president. Then they pretty much ignored Judge Leon’s order.

And so it was that on April 16, 2026, Judge Richard Leon issued his memorandum opinion in National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Parks Service, expanding upon and clarifying his March 31, 2026, opinion. He explained that the Trump administration had misunderstood his balanced decision to issue an injunction to stop construction of the ballroom but allow the continuation of work that was specifically involved in the security of the White House:

On March 31, 2026, I granted the motion of the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States (‘National Trust’) for a preliminary injunction to halt construction of a ballroom on White House grounds as ultra vires. In recognition of the national security and presidential security concerns raised by the ongoing construction project, I excluded from the scope of the injunction ‘actions strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House and its grounds, including the ballroom construction site, and provide for the personal safety of the President and his staff.’

Defendants now seek to tum this exception on its head and unreasonably insist that the entire ballroom project may proceed. Based on the record before me, I cannot possibly agree, but I will clarify the scope of the injunction as described below …

The Order preliminarily enjoined Defendants (excluding the President) from ‘taking any action in furtherance of the physical development of the proposed ballroom at the former site of the East Wing of the White House, including but not limited to any further demolition, site preparation work, landscape alteration, excavation, foundation work, or other construction or related work[.]’ …

Defendants argue that the entire ballroom construction project, from tip to tail, falls within the safety-and-security exception and therefore may proceed unabated. That is neither a reasonable nor a correct reading of my Order! My Order preliminarily enjoined Defendants (excluding the President) from ‘taking any action in furtherance of the physical development of the proposed ballroom.’ … The accompanying opinion stated that ‘the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes its completion.’ … It is, to say the least, incredible, if not disingenuous, that Defendants now argue that my Order does not stop ballroom construction because of the safety-and-security exception!

First, limiting the scope of the injunction to above-ground construction directly addresses the National Trust’s irreparable harm, which stems from the above-ground, visible construction of the ballroom.

(‘[T]he National Trust has never requested … that the Court enjoin construction of a bunker. The National Trust is simply requesting that the Court enjoin construction of the Ballroom.’). My Order barring above-ground construction provides ‘complete relief’ to the National Trust, while minimizing the ‘burden[]’ to Defendants through the safety-and-security exception …

Defendants now brazenly assert that below-ground construction has ‘been done with th[e] expectation of what would go above,’ and that the ‘project is a single, coherent whole.’ … Defendants argue that security-related elements of the ballroom, such as ‘missile-resistant steel columns and beams, drone-proof roofing, and bullet- and blast-proof glass windows’ will ‘advance safety and security interests as part of an inseparable whole.’ … Defendants further argue that ‘leaving the site as it stands poses serious safety and security threats that can only be addressed by proceeding with construction as planned.’….

In my view, these arguments fail to justify Defendants’ extraordinary, if not disingenuous, reading of my preliminary injunction Order … Indeed, Defendants’ latest representations that ‘the entire project advances critical national-security objectives as an integrated whole,’ … are in direct conflict with Defendants’ prior representations that the above-ground and below-ground portions of the project were ‘independent of’ one another … Defendants’ insistence that leaving the site “dormant” poses additional security risks also fails. As an initial matter, my Amended Order permits below-ground construction, measures for presidential security, and measures to secure the grounds … national security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity, and belated assertions that the above-ground ballroom is ‘inseparable’ from an array of security features … are not an occasion for this Court to reweigh the equities or reconsider the preliminary injunction! In my view, the safety-and-security exception, as clarified, permits measures critical to national and presidential security to move forward pending final resolution of this case and any appeal.

So, having illegally destroyed the East Wing and begun massive construction at the site, the government argues that they cannot possibly leave an unfinished site. Safety and security now require they finish a project they should not have started. And a project that began as a ballroom that would not cost taxpayers a dime now has morphed into a ballroom/combined missile defense system—and integrated whole—that just might require taxpayer dollars to subsidize these significant built-in security measures.

There are now several parties filing briefs before the United States Court of Appeals, including the American Civil Liberties Union and members of Congress, with oral arguments to be held June 5, 2026.

I must admit I was disturbed by the renderings the administration presented, so I went back to Claude to see if he/she/they/it shared my concerns about the design of the ballroom project. Here is some of what Claude had to say:

Scale is the Big Issue: The most significant design controversy is sheer size. New renderings show the 90,000-square-foot ballroom dwarfing the Executive Residence and the West Wing. That’s a genuinely striking proportion — the addition would visually overwhelm the original building it’s meant to complement. Many architects and preservationists find this deeply problematic, since the White House’s modest, human-scale elegance is a large part of its architectural dignity.

Architect Tensions: Trump had reported disagreements with original architect James McCrery — a specialist in classical architecture — including over the president’s wishes to increase the size of the ballroom. The fact that even a classical architecture specialist clashed over the scope suggests the scale concerns aren’t just from critics.

The Glass Bridge: Trump announced a ‘glass bridge’ will link the ballroom to the Executive Residence, offering panoramic views of the gardens. This is arguably the most architecturally interesting element — though blending modernist glass with neoclassical stone is a stylistic tension that divides opinion.

My take: The classical styling is a defensible choice for a building on that site. The real design challenge is the scale — a 90,000-square-foot addition next to one of the world’s most recognized and symbolically loaded buildings is an enormous intervention. Whether it reads as a grand complement or an overpowering imposition will likely depend on the final execution, but the renderings so far have raised legitimate concerns among architecture critics. The loss of the historic East Wing is also something many consider an irreversible cultural cost regardless of what replaces it.

Ah, Claude, yes, we await the final execution.

Beyond issues of architecture and politics, I cannot move past the underlying vanity of the project. I keep thinking of those many kings and queens and the shah of Iran who built palaces throughout their lands and, most recently, of Vladimir Putin who imprisoned and killed Alexei Navalny, the opposition leader, as much because he released drone footage of some of Putin’s most exclusive and opulent hideaway estates as his political dissent.

And I cannot escape this dreamlike vision of young Donald, disliked by so many in his Queens neighborhood, conjuring up a kingly future, with power enough to dispense all those who mocked and disparaged him or might very well in the future oppose him, dreaming of the day when, wherever he looked, he would see the people bowing down. Of course, the ballroom he would need was as much for the ceremonial display of his power as for pavanes and minuets. Yes, he could easily imagine presiding over an occasion much like Napoleon’s acceptance of the Siamese at Fountainbleau:

Emperor Napoleon receiving the Siamese in the ballroom at Fountainbleau, June 27, 1861. Painted by Jean-Leon Gerome, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Such the supplication. Yes, indeed, Donald John Trump would be more than happy to trade places with the Emperor. But alas, the Trump ballroom will never be Fountainbleau, and he will remain our tasteless king from Queens.