White House Ballroom Sparks Ethics Firestorm

White House with American flag and fountain, stormy sky.

The architect who designed Trump’s proposed $400 million White House ballroom has just been appointed to the very commission that will decide whether his own project gets approved.

Story Highlights

James McCrery, original architect of Trump’s White House ballroom, now sits on the commission reviewing his own design
Trump fired six Commission of Fine Arts members to make room for new appointments including McCrery
National Trust for Historic Preservation filed lawsuit to halt construction until proper reviews are completed
American Institute of Architects members claim McCrery violated professional ethics codes

The Fox Guarding the Henhouse

James McCrery finds himself in an extraordinary position. Trump handpicked him years ago to design the East Wing ballroom addition, and now McCrery sits on the Commission of Fine Arts that must approve his own architectural creation. This appointment came after Trump fired six sitting CFA members in October, clearing the deck for loyalists including McCrery, former NEA chair Mary Anne Carter, conservative writer Roger Kimball, and Washington figure Matthew Taylor.

The timing raises eyebrows among ethics watchdogs. McCrery previously served on the CFA from 2019 to 2024, giving him intimate knowledge of the review process. Now he returns as both designer and judge, creating what critics see as an inherent conflict of interest that undermines the commission’s independence.

Racing Against the Clock

The administration is pushing an aggressive timeline that compresses what typically takes years into mere months. The Commission of Fine Arts briefing, originally scheduled for this week, was delayed until next week. The National Capital Planning Commission faces a January 30 submission deadline, with a final vote targeted for March 5. The CFA review aims for completion by March 19, potentially allowing aboveground construction to begin in April.

This breakneck pace stands in stark contrast to normal federal review processes. The Executive Residence at the White House has taken direct control of the project, bypassing the National Park Service’s usual oversight role. Acting NPS Director Jessica Bowron justified this unusual arrangement, stating that EXR is “best positioned” to handle scope, schedule, budget, design, and execution.

Money Talks, Transparency Walks

The funding mechanism adds another layer of complexity to this already controversial project. On November 13, the National Park Service accepted a donation from an unnamed nonprofit, then immediately transferred it to the Executive Residence. This private funding approach allows the administration to sidestep normal congressional appropriations while raising questions about donor influence and transparency.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation isn’t buying this streamlined approach. They’ve filed a lawsuit demanding that construction halt until both the CFA and NCPC complete their reviews and Congress provides proper funding approval. Their legal challenge represents the primary obstacle to Trump’s ambitious construction timeline.

Professional Ethics Under Fire

McCrery’s dual role has triggered criticism from his own professional peers. Members of the American Institute of Architects allege that he violated the AIA Code of Ethics through his involvement in the ballroom project. While this represents member opinion rather than a formal ruling, it highlights the uncomfortable position McCrery occupies within the architectural community.

The Society of Architectural Historians has also weighed in, expressing “great concern” about the ballroom addition’s impact on the White House’s historic integrity. Their October 16 statement reflects broader preservation community opposition to altering one of America’s most iconic buildings. McCrery has remained silent on his reappointment, declining to respond to requests for comment about the ethics concerns surrounding his involvement.