October 23, 2025

Thursday, October 23, 2025. Annette’s Roundup for Democracy.

Outrage at Trump’s Destruction of the White House continues to grow.

Article #1 - New York Times.

Published Oct. 20, 2025
Updated Oct. 22, 2025, 10:49 a.m. ET

Architects Urged a Review of Trump’s Ballroom. Cue the Demolition Crew.

Architects were surprised by the scale and speed of the project, but the president is moving forward with his plans for a ballroom at the White House.

Ever since President Trump announced plans to build a ballroom in the White House, prominent architecture groups have raised concerns. Just last week, the Society of Architectural Historians urged that “such a significant change to a historic building of this import should follow a rigorous and deliberate design and review process.”

A few days later, demolition crews tore off the facade of the East Wing.

The speed with which the president is moving ahead with building the ballroom, which is expected to cost more than $200 million and to be privately funded, caught the architecture profession by surprise. And it raised questions about whether the administration was following the traditional approval process for building on the White House grounds.

Some of the country’s most prominent architecture groups had been calling for careful deliberation, review and planning.

“While we recognize that the White House is a building with evolving needs, and that it has undergone various exterior and interior modifications since construction began in 1792, the proposed ballroom will be the first major change to its exterior appearance in the last 83 years (since the East Wing in its current form was built in 1942),” the Society of Architectural Historians said in its statement last week.

The American Institute of Architects noted over the summer that although the project would be privately funded, the White House was not a private building. “The historic edifice at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the People’s House, a national treasure and an enduring symbol of our democracy,” it said in a statement in August, after the proposal was revealed. “Any modifications to it — especially modifications of this magnitude — should reflect the importance, scale and symbolic weight of the White House itself.”

The Trump administration brushed off criticisms in a news release that referred to the long history of construction projects at the White House.

“In the latest instance of manufactured outrage, unhinged leftists and their fake news allies are clutching their pearls over President Donald J. Trump’s visionary addition of a grand, privately funded ballroom to the White House — a bold, necessary addition that echoes the storied history of improvements and renovations from commanders-in-chief to keep the executive residence as a beacon of American excellence,” it said in the statement.

Some preservation specialists who have worked on White House proposals in the past raised questions about how the ballroom project was being reviewed.

Thomas M. Gallas, who was a member of the National Capital Planning Commission when it reviewed a proposal to build a new tennis pavilion on the White House grounds during Mr. Trump’s first term, said that such proposals would typically be submitted for review earlier.

“Usually those reviews happen in the early stages of what we would call concept design or schematic design,” he said in an interview. “Through the review process, if change is needed, you want to make those early before the architects and engineers have drawn the construction documents.”

Joan M. Brierton, a preservation specialist who spent nearly three decades with the General Services Administration overseeing federal building projects before leaving this year, said that changes to the White House typically required review by a number of commissions. She pointed to a series of projects reviewed by the Commission of Fine Arts in recent years, including the construction of the tennis pavilion.

Even some conservative architecture critics still have unresolved worries.

“My concern is that the ballroom wing might overwhelm the historic mansion in scale,” said Catesby Leigh, an architecture critic who helped found the National Civic Art Society alongside James McCrery II, the ballroom’s architect.

Will Scharf, Mr. Trump’s staff secretary and the chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, said at a meeting last month that people have called for years for a large event space at the White House. He questioned reports suggesting that the commission should have been consulted earlier, calling them “deceiving.”

Mr. Scharf said that the commission had jurisdiction over construction, not demolition. When a plan is submitted, he said, the commission would review it with other parties to make sure it is “as beautiful as it can be.”

“I know the president thinks very highly of this commission, and I’m excited for us to play a role in the ballroom project when the time is appropriate for us to do so,” he said at the meeting.

Edward Lengel, who served as chief historian of the White House Historical Association for two years until 2018, said he had been getting questions about the process. “People have asked me if this is illegal. I don’t think this is illegal,” he said. “I think this is a big loophole that has always been there. Previous presidents have observed precedent and not tried to exploit that loophole.”

When officials unveiled plans for the ballroom in late July, some conservatives believed it resembled the president’s vow to make “Federal Architecture Beautiful Again” — as he wrote in August in an executive order about the merits of neoclassical design.

Many conservatives have stood behind the ballroom project. On social media, Victoria Coates, the vice president of the Heritage Foundation’s Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, described complaints about construction as “pearl clutching.”

“All of us who have been privileged to work at the White House know that as the People’s House, it is not the most imperially grand complex in the world, nor should it be,” she wrote in a social media post in which she described herself as the “resident art historian” of the foundation. “But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be improved and expanded as necessary.” (New York Times)

Article #2 - New York Times.

Oct. 22, 2025
Updated 7:16 p.m. ET

Trump Said He Wouldn’t Touch the East Wing. Then He Tore It All Down.

President Trump initially said the ballroom construction would not affect the East Wing. The White House now says it was cheaper and more structurally sound to simply demolish it.

As roaring machinery tore down one side of the White House, President Trump acknowledged on Wednesday that he was having the entire East Wing demolished to make way for his 90,000-square-foot ballroom, a striking expansion of a project that is remaking the profile of one of the nation’s most iconic buildings.

Mr. Trump was unsentimental as news of the demolition spread. “It was never thought of as being much,” he said of the East Wing, which was home to the first lady’s office and spaces used for ceremonial purposes. “It was a very small building.”

The process of tearing down the East Wing was expected to be completed as soon as this weekend, two senior administration officials said, as Mr. Trump moved rapidly to carry out a passion project that he said was necessary to host state dinners and other events.

But the previously unannounced decision to demolish the East Wing was at odds with Mr. Trump’s previous statements about the project, and underscored his intention to blast through the sensibilities of many in Washington to continue putting a lasting imprint on the White House.

The president also said on Wednesday that the ballroom would cost $300 million, $100 million more than initially estimated.

“In order to do it properly, we had to take down the existing structure,” Mr. Trump said. He also said — somewhat cryptically — that “certain areas are being left.” But the two senior administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the plans, confirmed that the entire East Wing was being demolished.

The West Wing and the White House residence, where the president lives, are not affected by the project, which is the largest renovation to the White House in decades.

When Mr. Trump first announced his plans for the ballroom, he pledged that the East Wing would not be touched by the construction.

“It won’t interfere with the current building. It’ll be near it but not touching it,” he said in July. “And pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of.”

Upon further evaluation, the White House determined it was cheaper and more structurally sound to demolish the East Wing than to build an addition, one of the administration officials said.

On Wednesday, the Secret Service kept onlookers away as heavy machinery ripped away at hunks of the building.

The scope of the demolition, and Mr. Trump’s repeated promises that the White House itself would not be affected by the work, were in many ways symbolic of how he has conducted his presidency. On a variety of issues, Mr. Trump has blown past norms and traditions, often moving so quickly that it can be too late for courts, Congress or the public to catch up.

The planned size of the ballroom would transform the footprint of the White House campus. At 90,000 square feet, the ballroom would be nearly double the size of the White House residence, which is 55,000 square feet.

The ballroom is only the latest renovation plan that Mr. Trump has undertaken since he took office for the second time. He is also leaving his mark on the Oval Office, which now features many gilded flourishes. He also paved over the Rose Garden; erected huge flag poles on the White House grounds; and is planning to build an arch in front of Arlington National Cemetery in the style of the Arc de Triomphe.

Sara C. Bronin, a law professor at George Washington University who led the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation under former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said that Mr. Trump’s decision to tear down the East Wing appeared to run afoul of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic places.

“The Trump administration’s shortsighted decision to start demolishing parts of the White House is exactly the kind of action the N.H.P.A. was passed to circumvent,” she said.

Mr. Trump has said that he is raising tens of millions of dollars in private donations to fund the project. The president plans to contribute some of his own money as well, though the amount has not been determined, one of the officials said.

“It’s being paid for 100 percent by me and some friends of mine,” Mr. Trump said.

The East Wing was built in 1902 during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency as an extension to the White House, but was overhauled in the 1940s at the request of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It was built primarily to conceal an underground bunker, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. It also added formal work space for the White House staff, including the offices of the first lady. Lorenzo Winslow was the architect of that addition.

It has also housed the White House Social Office and served as a headquarters for planning parties, state dinners and other events.

With the demolition of the East Wing goes a slice of history. It was where President Bill Clinton met secretly with Dick Morris, a political adviser, without his staff knowing. It was where Vice President Dick Cheney was hustled to a bunker after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Mr. Trump was rushed there, too, during protests in 2020.

The White House on Tuesday did not answer questions about the bunker, but one of the administration officials said the new structure would also have enhanced security features.

Amid backlash to the demolition, the White House has defended its decision, publishing photos of past renovations and construction projects undertaken by presidents.

The White House says the ballroom, once finished, will have a seated capacity of 650 people, though Mr. Trump said recently it would hold 999 people.

McCrery Architects is the lead architect. The construction team will be headed by Clark Construction, and the engineering team will be led by AECOM.

Edward Lengel, the former chief historian of the White House Historical Association, said the demolition may signal that the ballroom will be far closer to the main White House than initially described.

“Its proximity to the original Executive Mansion may be much closer — practically conjoined onto it,” he said. (New York Times).

LETTERS

Trump’s Ballroom Is a National ‘Desecration’

To the Editor:

Re “Rubble? It’s a Presidential Dream Being Realized” (White House Memo, front page, Oct. 22):

The demolition of the East Wing to make room for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom is not just a construction project — it is also a desecration of national heritage. As you reported, President Trump had pledged that the work would not interfere with the existing building, a claim as unrealistic as it was revealing.

The White House has always stood as a symbol of democratic continuity, a place where power is held in trust, not flaunted for spectacle. To tear down part of it to build a personal ballroom — with money from wealthy donors seeking access — is to turn the “People’s House” into a gilded stage for one man’s vanity.

Donald Trump has made a career out of demolishing what others hold sacred, from Manhattan landmarks to the norms of public service. The destruction of the East Wing is simply the latest chapter in that story.

I hope that when future generations visit Washington they will see this not as progress, but as a cautionary tale of what happens when self-worship overtakes civic responsibility.

John Petrone
Portales, N.M.
——-
To the Editor:

When our building — erected in 1839 as a Baptist church, then in the early 20th century becoming a synagogue, then for the last 30 years serving as an arts center, and since 2006 on the National Register of Historic Places — needed to add a small storage shed this year, it required approval of the Massachusetts Historical Commission. We submitted detailed plans showing no changes affecting the historical elements of the building, and, after a careful review, received the commission’s approval.

How is it possible that one of the most beloved, historic buildings in our country can have a demolition crew tearing down walls in preparation for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom that will greatly change the shape and size of the White House, without any formal review by a historical or architectural body?

That the addition is the vision of someone whose taste for grandiosity has already sullied the dignity of the Oval Office is even more alarming.

Hilde Weisert
Sandisfield, Mass.
The writer is a co-president of the Sandisfield Arts Center.

——-

To the Editor:

Our president disrespects both the tangible and the intangible aspects of our history. To him, the landmark status of the East Wing, where memories of our past were preserved, are valueless.

But these objects of our history can awaken a love of country — even among children. Sadly sledgehammers now tear down our hallowed past.

Covering the inside of the new ballroom with gold says that only wealth has value. Simple white walls where caring leaders built our democracy work best to inspire devotion, like the houses of worship where my grandparents and my parents shed tears and prayed.

Spare me the glitter of gold and lies. Better to live in truth and freedom.

Simon Raskin
Spring Valley, N.Y.

——-

---

Trump’s attack on our cattle farmers.

A perfect sample of the Trump playbook - take credit, blame others.

---

Believers in Democracy say, let the voters decide. The Trump party doesn’t.

We may lose a House seat in North Carolina, and more in Texas and Missouri, if Trump and his lackeys succeed.

The latest redistricting salvo: North Carolina gerrymanders out House Democrat.

The map will likely face legal challenges, similar to efforts in Texas and Missouri.

Demonstrators hold signs during a rally protesting a proposed election redistricting map Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025, in Raleigh, N.C. | Chris Seward/AP Photo.

North Carolina Republicans passed a new congressional map Wednesday that will likely give the GOP one more red-leaning seat in next year’s midterms, the latest in a string of White House-backed redistricting efforts.
The redraw creates the seventh new red-leaning seat nationwide since 2024, following similar efforts in Texas and Missouri. Other states are also facing increased pressure to redraw.

The new map primarily affects Rep. Don Davis (D-N.C.). President Donald Trump narrowly carried his district in 2024, and the new district would have voted for Trump by roughly 11 percentage points.

A spokesperson for Davis told Spectrum News that he plans to run for reelection either in his current district or the also-redrawn 3rd District.

In a statement, Davis said the map “is beyond the pale.”

“Since the start of this new term, my office has received 46,616 messages from constituents of different political parties, including those unaffiliated, expressing a range of opinions, views, and requests,” Davis said. “Not a single one of them included a request for a new congressional map redrawing eastern North Carolina.”

Even before this redraw, North Carolina had one of the most GOP-friendly gerrymanders in the nation, with the current delegation split between 10 Republicans and four Democrats despite the battleground nature of statewide elections. Davis represents the only true swing district on the map.
Democratic Gov. Josh Stein has no power to veto the maps — due in part to a deal brokered by state Democrats in the 1990s that exempted redistricting from the governor’s powers.

Still, the map will likely face legal challenges, similar to efforts in Texas and Missouri.

Republicans have painted their redistricting efforts as a response to heavily gerrymandered blue states like Illinois and Maryland — and they’ve also pinned the blame on California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s effort in California — while not mentioning Texas, the first volley in this year’s redistricting war.

“North Carolina Republicans will not sit quietly and watch Democrats continue to ignore the will of the people in an attempt to force their liberal agenda on our citizens,” state Senate leader Phil Berger said on X on Tuesday after the Senate passed the redraw. “This new map respects the will of the North Carolina voters who sent President Trump to the White House three times.”

North Carolina has seen a significant amount of fighting over its congressional map. This will be the fourth consecutive election held under a different congressional map.

“We’re ground zero for gerrymandering, unfortunately,” said Democratic state Sen. Natalie Murdock. (Politico)

Despite Trump’s calls, Indiana gerrymandering may not happen.

Indiana Senate GOP leader says there’s still not enough support for redistricting.

Officials within the Indiana Senate’s Republican caucus signaled Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s efforts to redraw state district maps are not yet across the finish line.

“The votes aren’t there for redistricting,” Molly Swigart, spokesperson for Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray, told the IBJ on Wednesday.

That evaluation from Bray’s office comes as the White House has stepped up its pressure campaign on Indiana lawmakers, particularly Republican senators, in the last few weeks.

Vice President JD Vance twice visited Indianapolis to speak with state lawmakers about redistricting: once in August and again earlier this month.

On Friday, The New York Times reported that Trump held a call urging Indiana GOP senators to redraw the state’s district maps.

Per the Indiana Capital Chronicle, Bray participated in last week’s call with the White House and called conversations with the Vice President on his most recent visit “fruitful” and productive.”

“Obviously, the conversation was about redistricting,” Bray told reporters. “We talked a lot about that—pros and cons—and so, no decisions were made. But we’re going to work on that and hopefully have a decision very soon.”

Swigart did not immediately respond when asked by the IBJ where Bray stands on redistricting.

Meanwhile, Gov. Mike Braun released a statement Wednesday saying he’s still hoping to call a special session on redistricting.

“I am still having positive conversations with members of the legislature. I am confident the majority of Indiana Statehouse Republicans will support efforts to ensure fair representation in congress for every Hoosier,” the governor said in a post on social media.

Indiana’s Congressional delegation currently 7-2 in favor of Republicans, with Democrats only representing the district comprising Indianapolis and northwest Indiana.

Multiple polls released in the last few weeks suggest a majority of Hoosiers are not in favor of redistricting.

While some in opposition to redistricting were quick to celebrate on Wednesday, House Democratic Leader Phil GiaQuinta, D-Fort Wayne, cautioned that these discussions may be far from over.

“House Democrats have received massive amounts of calls against redistricting, and I’m sure the Senate Republicans have, too,” he said in a written statement. “I’ll continue to monitor the possibility of redistricting until we end the 2026 legislative session in March.”

The national fight over mid-cycle redistricting was sparked by lawmakers in Texas redrawing their state’s maps to please the Trump administration. Missouri recently followed suit, while California will soon vote on new maps to benefit Democrats in the state.

(Indiana Business Journal).

---

Trump Retribution list grows.

Comey, James, Bolton, now Brennan.

Obama CIA chief Brennan referred by House Republicans to DOJ for prosecution

John Brennan, who was CIA director under Obama, was referred to the Justice Department Tuesday by House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who accused him of lying to Congress about the Steele dossier.

Why it matters: The recommendation is a high-profile effort by House Republicans to prosecute a former intelligence official, aligning with President Trump's broader goals to legally target his political enemies.

Catch up quick: The Steele dossier, a widely discredited set of memos compiled in 2016 by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, alleged ties between Russia and Trump.

Parts of the dossier were shared with the FBI and cited in intelligence efforts, including the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian election interference.

Brennan was reportedly under prior investigation by the current DOJ for allegedly lying about Russia's involvement, and he has denied any wrongdoing.

Driving the news: In a letter sent Tuesday to Attorney General Pam Bondi, the committee claimed there is "significant evidence" Brennan made "numerous willfully and intentionally false statements" in his testimony about the CIA's involvement with the Steele dossier.

"Brennan's assertion that the CIA was not 'involved at all' with the Steele dossier cannot be reconciled with the facts," Jordan wrote in the letter.

"Brennan's testimony ... was a brazen attempt to knowingly and willfully testify falsely and fictitiously to material facts."

Context: The letter accuses Brennan of falsely testifying on three separate accounts.

It says he allegedly lied about the CIA using the Steele dossier as part of the Intelligence Community Assessment's post-election draft in 2023.

Jordan wrote that Brennan provided untrue information about the agency's opposition to incorporating the dossier in the ICA.

He accuses Brennan of giving misleading testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence at a hearing in 2017.

What they're saying: "John Brennan lied to Congress," Jordan said in an X post Tuesday. "Today, we referred him to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution."

Representatives from Brennan's book publisher and his attorney who represented him in 2022 during then -special counsel John Durham's Russia investigation did not immediately respond to Axios' Tuesday evening request for comment.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to Axios'Tuesday evening request for comment.

Read the letter in full.

(Axios)

---

Obama endorsed Mikie Sherrill for Governor of New Jersey.

Join him.

Chip in any amount to elect Mikie Sherrill. Click here.

---

Remember this.

23 days and counting - all to stop government support for health insurance premiums.

---