WASHINGTON, D.C. — October 26, 2025 — The Washington Post editorial board has publicly defended former President Donald Trump’s controversial White House ballroom project, arguing that while the approach may be divisive, the idea itself fulfills a long-overdue need for a proper event space at the executive mansion.
The paper’s editors wrote Sunday that, despite political uproar and media criticism, future presidents — including Democrats — will ultimately benefit from the addition.
“In classic Trump fashion, the president is pursuing a reasonable idea in the most jarring manner possible. Privately, many alumni of the Biden and Obama White Houses acknowledge the long-overdue need for an event space like what Trump is creating. It is absurd that tents need to be erected on the South Lawn for state dinners, and VIPs are forced to use porta-potties,” the editorial stated.
The ballroom, part of a 90,000-square-foot East Wing addition, is designed to host up to 999 guests — a major increase from the State Dining Room’s capacity of 140 and the East Room’s limit of 200. Construction began earlier this month with the demolition of portions of the East Wing, a move that quickly drew condemnation from political figures and commentators on both sides of the aisle.
“The State Dining Room seats 140. The East Room seats about 200. Trump says the ballroom at the center of his 90,000-square-foot addition will accommodate 999 guests. The next Democratic president will be happy to have this,” the editorial continued.
Demolition of the East Wing sparked immediate backlash from Democratic leaders and cultural figures. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, and CBS host Stephen Colbert were among those who criticized the project as a misuse of public trust and disrespect toward a national symbol.
“The people’s house is basically being sold to the highest bidder,” Jean-Pierre said on ABC’s The View on Tuesday. “It is corruption at its core.”
Hillary Clinton also took aim at Trump’s plans during a campaign event, accusing him of “treating the White House like a private club.”
Others, such as Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), went further, urging future Democratic candidates to make tearing down the ballroom a campaign promise:
“Any Democrat running for president in 2028 needs to vow to destroy the ballroom on day one,” Swalwell declared.
In its defense of the project, the Washington Post editorial board pointed to a broader issue in American infrastructure — the slow pace of approval and excessive red tape. The editors argued that Trump’s direct approach, though controversial, may have been the only way to complete such a project within his term.
“Prominent Democrats have become vocal this year in calling out their party’s lawyerly obsession with process, which combined with a not in my backyard (NIMBY) mentality, has prevented a place such as California from building a high-speed rail project that its voters approved by referendum in 2008,” the board wrote.
The editorial concluded that had Trump followed the traditional bureaucratic process, the ballroom might never have materialized.
“The blueprints would have faced death by a thousand papercuts,” it stated.
While the scale of Trump’s addition is unprecedented, major White House renovations are not. Past presidents have overseen significant expansions and reconstructions: Theodore Roosevelt’s 1902 West Wing, Harry Truman’s complete interior rebuild in the 1950s, and the Obama-era modernization projects all reflect a history of adapting the residence to changing times.
However, Trump’s plan — a lavish ballroom with near-thousand capacity — has reignited debates over the symbolism of presidential space and whether such opulence reflects or contradicts the democratic spirit of the “People’s House.”
Political analysts note that the Washington Post’s defense marks a rare instance of the paper aligning with a Trump initiative, even if only on practical grounds. The editorial’s tone suggests that functionality and modernization should transcend partisanship, especially for facilities hosting heads of state and major national ceremonies.
As construction continues on the East Wing demolition site, public opinion remains sharply divided. Supporters call the ballroom a long-overdue modernization project that enhances state functions and global prestige. Critics view it as a symbol of excess and personal branding by the former president.
Still, the editorial board’s pragmatic position underscores a larger theme in Washington: the tension between tradition, modernization, and political image.
As one analyst put it, “Trump may have built something that outlasts the outrage.”
Originally reported by Hanna Panreck in Fox News
.webp)
