Sky-high material costs and labor shortages don’t seem to matter when wealthy donors are footing the bill.
This week, Americans woke up to images of the White House’s partially demolished, splintered butt. As the Washington Post first reported, construction has begun on President Trump’s forthcoming event space: a 90,000-square-foot ballroom addition that will seat up to 999 guests and nearly double the building’s footprint. Already, it has been rife with misleadings and conflict: Construction began without approval from the National Capitol Planning Commission, which reviews large-scale federal projects. Additionally, though Trump once claimed the addition wouldn’t “interfere” with the East Room—which is often used for entertaining—the New York Times reported that the entire wing will be demolished for the ballroom’s insertion. Like Trump’s other White House updates, including paving over the famed Rose Garden, the project has received criticism from politicians, the American Institute of Architects, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and others.
But the biggest questions surround the project’s cost. President Trump has stated that the renovation will cost $250 million—up from the original $200 million quoted earlier this year—and has made clear that this will be covered entirely by private donations. The Hill published a list of confirmed and likely funders, which include Google, management consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin, and Trump himself. Though some may be relieved that private donors are footing the bill instead of American taxpayers, the funding strategy highlights the disparities between the sluggish construction industry and what appears to be a lavish vanity project. As building material costs (inflated by Trump’s international tariffs) and labor shortages impact much-needed housing and commercial developments across the country, the ballroom illustrates how corporate fealty can underwrite an expeditious project completion. Perhaps tariffs matter less when Lockheed Martin is paying for your home renovation?
The ballroom certainly isn’t the first renovation to touch the White House: According to Architectural Digest, Trump’s event space is but one of 11 major construction projects, including additions and renovations, throughout the building’s 225-year history. This most recent addition, designed by D.C.-based McCreary Architects, a firm that has built a portfolio characterized by neoclassical and religious projects, is matched only by President Truman’s gut renovation in the early 1950s. According to the Truman Library Institute, the renovation was necessary to “repair the executive mansion’s dangerous structural condition.” The cost to renovate and stabilize much of the building? Fifty-million dollars today, per the Institute, dwarfed by Trump’s $250 million singular ballroom addition.
This difference highlights the enormous cost of construction today, exacerbated by recent tariffs on necessary building materials. It’s unlikely that the ballroom addition will move forward without the use of imported materials; MSC, a shipping and logistics company, states that construction materials imported globally accounted for nearly 32 percent of the materials used in U.S. residential, commercial, and infrastructure projects. Construction management platform Archdesk describes just how these tariffs have affected broader project feasibility: Escalating costs of steel, aluminum, copper, and lumber—all which impact structures, plumbing, electrical, and more—cause project delays and cost overruns. “A survey by Associated General Contractors of America determines that over 60 percent of construction companies are experiencing delays or terminations of projects due to rising materials cost,” they write. Yet the White House seems confident they won’t fall victim to delays; in a July statement, officials claimed the ballroom should be completed “long before” Trump’s term ends in 2028.
On October 15th, President Trump met with his ballroom donors in the East Room of the White House.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
Perhaps this confidence stems from their funding strategy. The New York Times reported on a dinner held by the Trump administration earlier this month that convened “dozens of corporate executives who agreed to help finance the ballroom’s construction.” Private donors might avoid creating a taxpayer-funded moneypit, but there’s an issue of transparency: As a public building, the notion that private donors would contribute to a construction project, potentially offsetting cost uncertainties with unknown future quid pro quos, seems dubious. Legal reporting Substack Law Dork, which first reported the East Wing demolition, called it “another example of Trump using his office to get people to give him money.” It’s now astoundingly clear who gets to buy their way out of a construction (and housing) crisis. All it takes is to afford the global gypsum market is the financial backing of a major weapons manufacturer.
Top photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images.
Related Reading:
What Trump’s Tariffs Could Mean for Home Building—and the Housing Crisis
