The East Wing of the White House, which had stood for generations, was demolished last month at President Donald Trump’s direction. Rising in its place is a sprawling new ballroom — a gleaming 90,000-square-foot monument that may not outlast the next election cycle.
If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028, the ornate new space could quickly become a political lightning rod. While any incoming administration would have weightier issues like foreign crises and domestic policy to tackle, there’s already growing chatter among Democrats about what should be done with the ballroom that Trump built. They could actually tear it down.
Within the Democratic Party, influential voices are brainstorming ideas for transforming the $300 million structure into something less reflective of Trump’s opulent tastes. Some have floated proposals that would turn the space into a cultural or civic center, rather than the gilded venue Trump envisioned for high-profile events and dinners.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who has hinted at a possible presidential run if Democrats reclaim the House, said he has no intention of leaving Trump’s vision intact. “No way,” Raskin declared. “This is a space that’s owned by the people and that serves the people. So, it should be used opposite of what Trump has in mind, which is for the American aristocracy and plutocracy to gather.”
California Rep. Ro Khanna, also viewed as a potential presidential contender, echoed that sentiment, suggesting that the hall should instead “celebrate and empower forgotten Americans,” rather than serve as a setting for lavish state banquets.
Critics within the party argue that maintaining the ballroom would reward what they call Trump’s disregard for process — tearing down the East Wing without warning and using private donations to bankroll the construction. To them, preserving it as a ballroom would symbolize complicity.
Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen takes the opposition even further. “I don’t think it would be a bad idea to tear it down,” he said bluntly. “It’s this gigantic blob there that’s Donald Trump.”
Asked about what might become of the ballroom after Trump leaves office, the White House declined to comment. Trump himself, however, has defended the project as a practical improvement, designed to eliminate the need for outdoor tent events. He has said the ballroom will allow future leaders to “hold large events in a convenient indoor space.” White House officials insist that presidents for over 150 years have wanted precisely such a facility.
Anita McBride, a board member of the White House Historical Association and former chief of staff to First Lady Laura Bush, praised the idea — provided it is done right. “I hope it remains a ballroom and hope that it’s tastefully and beautifully done so that future presidents will be proud to host honored guests there,” she said. “But what I mostly hope is that the new building includes offices for the Office of the First Lady, White House social office and White House Visitor Office. Those offices serve the presidency in a unique and special way, welcoming all visitors to the People’s House.”
History shows that presidents altering the White House often invite criticism. Harry Truman was ridiculed for adding a balcony to the South Portico in 1948, prompting a cartoon that mocked him saying, “Love me… love my balcony.” Yet none of those renovations compare to the scale of Trump’s new addition — or to the controversy surrounding it.
For many Democrats, the ballroom is an irresistible political symbol. It plays perfectly into their narrative of Trump’s excess and disregard for norms. Polling backs their instincts: a recent Washington Post-Ipsos survey showed that 88% of Democrats and 61% of independents oppose the project altogether.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, another name floated for a 2028 presidential bid, pulled no punches when discussing it. “It’s a metaphor for this administration — the recklessness to which he goes about things, the fact that he doesn’t believe in rules, he doesn’t believe they apply to him,” Newsom said in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press. “So, you know, he’s a wrecking ball presidency.”
Still, tearing it down could prove politically cumbersome. With other priorities competing for attention, a Democratic president might simply decide to ignore the ballroom and focus elsewhere. Even Newsom, who is no admirer of Trump, hasn’t said what he would do with it. His office declined to comment.
Some on the left, however, are already pitching creative ideas. Saikat Chakrabarti, a congressional candidate from San Francisco running for the seat being vacated by Nancy Pelosi, said he would introduce legislation to turn the ballroom into a Smithsonian museum about “corruption and autocracy.” The exhibit, he said, would showcase the private donors who financed the project, to “really put into the sunlight how this thing came to even be.”
Raskin envisions something different — a mixed-use hall that hosts some official events while also serving as an educational space on American democracy. “One side of the space,” he proposed, would trace the history of attempts to “undermine and thwart popular democracy in American life,” from King George III to Trump’s challenge of the 2020 election results. His suggested name: the “Democracy Matters Ballroom.”
Khanna, meanwhile, thinks the public should have the final say. “We need a White House that is not for the tech billionaires, but for forgotten Americans,” he said. “In that spirit, we should ask Americans — in rural communities, urban centers and hollowed-out factory towns — for their ideas of what to do with the space.”
Republican presidents might choose to keep the ballroom intact, viewing it as part of Trump’s enduring legacy. Yet even within the GOP, tastes differ. Trump’s penchant for gilded décor and grand halls isn’t universally shared. As one historian observed, the project risks altering the image of the White House itself.
“The White House is a residence that symbolizes American democracy,” said Edward Lengel, former chief historian of the White House Historical Association. The ballroom, he cautioned, makes it look less like a presidential home and more like “a palace.”
{Matzav.com}
