I'm going to approach politics here, but try to carefully steer clear of the precipice. I want to understand something, and I expect as with a number of other things, y'all have different views than I, and I'd like to hear them.
If no one objects, I'd like to understand your views on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Is this a hot-button issue for you? May I ask why, and maybe ask a couple of followup questions?
Don't necessarily have a problem with it being done, just how. After all, both East and West Wings were additions. As it is on the historic register, there is a process to go through before changing it. As he usually does, procedure and protocol were ignored and he just did it. Of course he lied about it saying the existing structures would not be changed. Secondly, I'm afraid it is going to reflect his tacky golden taste and look like a Versailles copy.
Finally, with as big as it is, am I correct in understanding that it will only add 60 seats to current White House capacity? Architecturally, its sad that it will dwarf the White House.
The capacity of the East Room (not to be confused with the demolished East Wing) is 200. The capacity of the planned ballroom is said to be 900, so no, it doesn't add only 60 seats. I don't know what the capacity is of the tent that has been used, but that would be an invalid comparison, as the point of the ballroom is to be rid of the tent.
**Edit - apparently we were both correcting that at the same time. Sorry. 
Followup question: What gives you to believe that procedure and protocol weren't followed?
From https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/23/trump-white-house-east-wing-demolition-explained/86837471007/
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires reviews of projects that affect most historic buildings, but the White House, Supreme Court building and U.S. Capitol are exempt.
Priya Jain, who chairs a heritage conservation committee at the Society of Architectural Historians, said past White House renovations ‒ even as minor as renovations to a shed ‒ have gone through public review procedures established in the Historic Preservation Act, even though it wasn't required.
"Even if it's not happening formally, we would assume it's happening behind the doors," Jain said, whose organization has called for the demolition to be halted.
But that hasn't been the case with Trump's ballroom plans, which Jain said has exposed a "loophole" in the federal law that should be revisited.
What about the National Capital Planning Commission?
Still, construction projects on the White House campus typically go to review to the National Capital Planning Commission, the central planning agency of the federal government since 1952.
The White House had said it plans to submit the ballroom construction plan to the planning commission ‒ yet it went ahead with the East Wing demolition before doing so.
The White House argues the commission does not have jurisdiction over demolition of a federal building, only the construction. Will Scharf, the Trump-appointed chair of the commission, relayed that position during a public meeting Sept. 4.
"It is, in fact, the case that this commission does not have jurisdiction and it has long denied that it has jurisdiction over demolition and site preparation work on federal buildings and federal property," Scharf said. "What we deal with is essentially construction ‒ vertical build."
Could the planning commission reject the ballroom?
Even though Trump's ballroom eventually will go before the National Capital Planning Commission, the panel lacks clear authority to outright reject projects from the White House.
Under the 1952 law that created the commission, if the federal agency requesting the project does not agree with the commission's views, "the agency may proceed to take action in accordance with its legal responsibilities and authority."
That could effectively make the commission's report on Trump's ballroom a set of recommendations, not a binding decision.
Regardless, the commission is stacked with Trump loyalists. Three of the five appointed members on the 12-member commission are appointed by the president, including Scharf, who is also Trump's White House staff secretary.
In past administrations, plans for some White House projects have also been submitted to a second panel: the seven-member U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, which acts an advisory board on aesthetics and designs. The Trump White House appears to be bypassing this commission, however, when it comes to the ballroom.
So, you believe that there should be structures outside the executive branch that impose limits upon what the executive branch does with the resources that the executive branch controls. Do I have this right?
Like I told Tony, I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand. As it stands, all the agencies that control what happens to the White House are under the executive branch. The president - whichever president - populates them. The Committee for the Preservation of the White House, the Capitol Planning Commission, whatever...these are all executive branch entities that the President populates, and he doesn't need Senate Confirmation. He can populate them with "loyalists." You feel that is insufficient. Do I have this right?
I understand you meant this for Travelin Dave, but allow me to answer, so that you can fully get my position.
Yes, I believe that there should be structures outside the executive branch that impose limits upon what the executive branch does with the resources that the executive branch controls. I always assumed this was part of the checks and balances our forefathers intended. But I'm sure you know the old adage about assuming.
