Copyright newsweek
President Donald Trump had the East Wing of the White House demolished last week to prepare for the construction of a new ballroom. Is the new White House ballroom a destruction of America’s national heritage? Or a valuable public service? And should Americans be concerned about the project’s reliance on outside donations—or grateful? Newsweek contributors Paul du Quenoy and Dan Perry debate: Paul du Quenoy: President Trump’s White House Ballroom project is a splendid public service that should make all Americans proud. For decades, the presidential residence has lacked the capacity to receive foreign dignitaries in large groups, consigning them instead to awkward outdoor arrangements or other venues. The construction is well within historical precedent, which has included major demolition and reconstruction, from the installation of a swimming pool by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a bowling alley by Richard Nixon to the creation of the Oval Office itself by William Howard Taft. Unlike those projects, Trump’s ballroom is privately funded by patriots who philanthropically fund other public facilities and projects. The White House is not a museum but a living, evolving institution on which President Trump has every right to leave his mark. There is no reason for Americans to be proud; rather, they should be horrified and revolted. Even as protests erupted declaring “No Kings,” the White House began demolishing part of the East Wing to build a $250 million (or is it $300 million?) Versailles-style ballroom that will dwarf the White House residence. This is an obvious vanity project for a leader who wants to be a king and makes no secret of it, caring little for history or the feelings of the citizenry. With chandeliers the size of ambulances, Corinthian columns, and space for two thousand guests, it transforms the “people’s house” into a monument of self-worship. This, as Americans are losing health care and other benefits. Shameful. White House East Wing Demolition and Ballroom Construction The majestic ballroom, much like the one at Mar-a-Lago, might not be to everyone’s aesthetic taste. But such subjective judgments cannot and should not invalidate the president’s authority, especially when he uses it to create a sorely need space to entertain on a level commensurate with our great country’s power and prestige. And none of the cost comes from public funds even as congressional Democrats refuse to pass budget resolution after budget resolution. The issue isn’t just taste—it’s ethics, messaging and essence. What is the ethical message of a self-financed palace built on public ground, that desecrates a national landmark for the vanity of a leader desperate to play king? Let’s not pretend Trump’s essential goal is pragmatic and functional. If there is a fortune in philanthropy available, let’s direct it at worthy projects. We just eviscerated USAID, which is costing lives all over the world, leaving democracy projects penniless and eviscerating American soft power. That’s the precisely the point—the addition is privately financed and therefore no burden on the public, national finances or any other operation of government. Whether it represents a “desecration” can only be a matter of personal taste, but surely it is neither more nor less a “desecration” than a swimming pool or bowling alley, both of which required significant demolition without triggering an overwrought meltdown. I’ll concede this much: The disgust is real—and earned. This is a man who imposes tariffs—really taxes on the American consumer—over personal grudges with foreign governments. He hauled nearly a thousand military leaders from around the world to Virginia to incite them against “enemies within.” He hints at running for an illegal third term. All of it is aimed at infuriating the public and sending the message that resistance is futile. This isn’t derangement, but pattern recognition, and his claim to be “addressing a need” for a monumental party palazzo inspires zero trust. Raising all these unrelated (and exaggerated) issues only highlights my original point: hatred of the ballroom is merely a manifestation of hatred of Trump, who has, by the way, ruled out a third term. The Left may demoralize itself over the president’s many triumphs, but building a ballroom only adds to the richness of the White House’s history and improves its functionality as the official residence of the chief executive of a great country. It’s a manifestation of the overall distrust and disgust, we can agree. But not “merely” one. It all fits together. My opposition to the vulgarization of the “People’s House,” done without expert opinion, reasonable reflection or public input, stands on its own. Neither d...
