In a dramatic turn, President Trump has replaced the original architect in charge of the White House Ballroom project — switching from McCrery Architects (led by James McCrery II) to the highly reputable Shalom Baranes Associates (headed by architect Shalom Baranes).
The change was announced publicly on December 4, 2025, as the project moves into a new phase — with demolition of the former East Wing (cleared in late October) already underway.
McCrery will remain on as a consultant, but Baranes is now the firm tasked with finishing the design and overseeing the construction of what is projected to be the biggest addition to the White House since the Oval Office expansion decades ago.
📐 Why the Change: Disagreements Over Size, Style, and Deadlines
🔹 Conflicts Over Vision and Scope
Sources familiar with internal discussions say the switch came after repeated disagreements between Trump and McCrery over the size and scale of the ballroom. The original plan called for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom with seating for about 650 people. But as the project progressed, Trump pushed for more — leading to a ballooning scope that McCrery’s firm struggled to accommodate.
When the project began, McCrery cautioned that an interior so large might “dwarf” the White House itself — a concern some architectural experts echoed.
🔹 Staffing, Timeline, and Capacity Concerns
Aside from stylistic differences, McCrery Architects reportedly lacked the staffing and resources to meet the escalating demands of the project and tight deadlines. That limitation — combined with missed milestones — reportedly led to the decision to bring in a larger, more established firm capable of managing huge federal projects.
🏗️ About the New Architect: Shalom Baranes Associates
Choosing Shalom Baranes is significant for several reasons:
- The firm has decades of experience with major Washington, D.C. landmarks and federal buildings — from the Treasury Building and GSA headquarters, to a major post-9/11 renovation of the Pentagon.
- In a White House statement, a spokesman called Baranes “an accomplished architect whose work has shaped the architectural identity of our nation’s capital for decades” — emphasizing his suitability for this ambitious rebuild.
- While known for modern design and careful preservation in past projects, his appointment may signal a shift toward pragmatism and scale over classical stylings, potentially aligning with Trump’s “big and beautiful” vision.
🧱 What the Ballroom Project Looks Like — So Far
- The ballroom is planned to be roughly 90,000 square feet, located where the former East Wing stood.
- It initially targeted a capacity of 650 seated guests, but that number has risen — recent statements suggest aims of 900 to 1,000+ seats.
- It’s being built as a separate structure, but with exterior design meant to match the classical style of the White House mansion. Interiors are described (in early renders) as opulent, likely featuring gilded finishes, grand halls, and ornate architecture.
- The project is reportedly privately funded (Trump + donors), with an estimated cost that has risen from $200 million to about $300 million.
🏛️ Why It Matters — And Why People Are Watching
⚖️ Historic Preservation vs. Modern Ambition
The demolition of the East Wing — built in 1902 and updated multiple times since — has triggered criticism from preservationists, historians, and some lawmakers. Many argue that replacing an older structure with a far larger addition disrupts the architectural balance and heritage value of the White House campus.
🔄 Precedent — And Power Dynamics
Switching architects midstream underscores both the scale of Trump’s ambition and the tension between classical architectural norms and contemporary political priorities. It also reflects a pattern: when structures, deadlines, or budgets become inconvenient, leadership simply resets the plan — a demonstration of top-down control over heritage.
🧱 Impact on Federal Oversight & Public Trust
The project has already drawn scrutiny for bypassing typical federal review in its demolition phase. While plans will now be submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the scope of change and rapid pace raise concerns about whether historic-preservation oversight is being undermined.
📅 What Happens Next
- The White House is preparing to submit full plans to the NCPC for review — a required step before final approval, though demolition has already occurred.
- Under Baranes, construction is expected to continue with hopes to finish before the end of the current Trump administration (2029).
- Preservationists, architects, and public-interest groups are mobilizing — some urging lawsuits or formal review processes, others pushing for greater transparency around donor funding and design impacts.
📝 Final Thoughts
The replacement of the White House Ballroom’s original architect with a more experienced firm signals a new phase in one of the most ambitious and controversial renovation projects in recent U.S. history.
At stake isn’t just a grand venue for state dinners — but issues of historic preservation, public transparency, federal oversight, and the identity of a national landmark.
Whether this project becomes a celebrated enhancement or a cautionary tale depends on how responsibly it’s handled from here on out.
