Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Getty Images
For months, President Donald Trump has touted plans for a new White House ballroom, a 90,000-square-foot behemoth just off the storied East Wing, which traditionally houses the office and staff of the First Lady. This week, images emerged of a full-scale demolition of the East Wing after repeated assurances from Trump and White House officials that the structure would not be touched as part of the construction.
I spoke with Sara Bronin, a professor at George Washington University Law School and the former chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, about whether Trump’s ballroom plans run afoul of preservation law and if any future projects can be halted.
To start, what were your initial reactions to the images we saw this week?
I think most Americans looked at those images and thought, What on earth is going on here? How is President Trump allowed to do this? For so many, including people around the world, the White House is a symbol of American democracy, of our shared history, a beacon of hope in the world. And to see the images of part of it, even if not the true historic core, being destroyed was pretty shocking.
As president, does Trump have the authority to order a project like this unilaterally?
No. The president has constraints on his ability to simply demolish properties, to demolish part of the White House. Many of the constraints on his power come from a system Congress set up to have a series of advisory bodies opine on proposed changes to the White House. It’s not clear to me that any of those bodies were consulted as required by law, and it’s not clear to me that any process or any set of what you might consider the typical reviews or typical considerations for a wide variety of issues involved in a construction project of this magnitude were really taken into account. The administration has said, “Well, we’re demolishing this to make way for the ballroom.” But the public hasn’t seen firm plans for what that ballroom will look like. So for all we know, he could be planning a Trump Tower–style casino there and we really just have no idea. The whole point of federal statutes and processes is to make sure the public understands what is happening and what the federal government is doing and that different values we have as a society are taken into account. And, of course, one of the core values here that has been obliterated by the demolition is that of historic preservation.
What is the typical process a historical project of this scale would have to undergo before getting green-lit?
Typically, a demolition, or really any change to a historic property in the care of the federal government, would go through the process outlined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Congress actually exempted the White House from the National Historic Preservation Act, probably thinking no president would ever willingly destroy parts of it, or at least that the president would have some respect for the historical context of the White House. But even if the National Historic Preservation Act doesn’t apply, it’s my understanding that the Park Service, which manages and operates the site, has long undertaken reviews much like Section 106 for changes that have been proposed over the years to the White House property. Other rules also apply, requirements that the president consult with a series of commissions that have D.C. properties and federal lands as part of their purview. But I don’t see that this project has gone through any of those processes, certainly not on the publicly available agendas for these groups.
Is there any sense that the ongoing federal-government shutdown has played a role in the lack of a review process?
I don’t know the extent to which the government shutdown informed the timing for any of the actions we saw this week. It is also the case that certain staff members involved in historic-preservation reviews across the federal government have maintained their status as required personnel during the shutdown. So even during this time, there seems to be sufficient government function to have at least initiated the processes President Trump would otherwise have been required to undertake. Maybe there was a general sense within the administration that there might be fewer people watching.
The White House released a list of some of the corporate donors to the ballroom project, including Apple, Google, and Lockheed Martin. Is it unusual for private donors to fund a construction project for a historic site like this?
I know of no precedent on the same scale that has involved the White House, much less any other major federal entity. There are historical organizations associated with the White House that have contributed over the years to different renovations and smaller projects. But again, the scale of this project — I think the price tag now is $250 million or maybe more — is, at least from what I know, unprecedented in terms of the extent of private involvement in additions to the White House.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation sent a letter asking the Trump administration and the National Park Service to halt construction until the ballroom plans go through the proper review process. Is there any person or entity that could force the construction to stop at this point, or is it largely under the president’s purview?
Right now, a team of attorneys and I are looking into all the possible potential legal actions, and we’re hoping to find some way to both enjoin the work that’s already underway and to set a better precedent for what may happen in the future of this site. For all we know, the president will keep going. I mean, under the arguments he’s making now, he could demolish the entire White House. Obviously, we hope it doesn’t come to that, but by extending the arguments he’s making, we could very well see that happening. That’s why we need to both explore the constraints that already exist on presidential power and try to urge Congress to do a little more.
In defense of the project, Trump officials and allies of the administration have pointed to renovations undertaken by past presidents, including expansions of the West Wing. In your opinion, is that a fair comparison to make?
Oh, absolutely not. The types of projects presidents have undertaken in the past, whether a basketball court or a tennis court or a bowling alley in the basement, have largely had very minimal effects on what the public sees. And when I say “what the public sees,” I mean there’s a sense embedded in historic-preservation law that what’s most important is what members of the public can see from public rights-of-way. What can they see from Pennsylvania Avenue? What can they see from the National Mall? And the kinds of changes that have happened in the past are not the kinds of changes that would be highly disruptive to people’s view of the White House from any vantage point outside of the White House grounds.
This obviously is an action of a totally different character, with outsize impact on not only the passerby, the person viewing the White House from the street, but also people around the world who are looking at a president wantonly destroying parts of our history and wondering how we can let that happen. And that’s why, I think, reviewing litigation options and raising the alarm to Congress that it needs to strengthen the protections over the White House is something preservationists and, in fact, all Americans need to do in the very short term.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
