U.S. President Donald Trump has initiated the most extensive structural change to the White House in more than seven decades. The East Wing, originally built in 1902, is being demolished to make way for a new $250 million ballroom designed to host large-scale state events.

Speaking at the White House, Trump described the project as “something truly magnificent,” adding, “This is a plan that has been discussed for 150 years. We’re finally making it happen—let’s see how it turns out.”

A ballroom for nearly a thousand guests

According to Trump, the new hall will accommodate up to 999 guests and be fitted with bulletproof glass throughout. “It will be so grand that, if we wish, we could even hold a presidential inauguration there,” he said.

The East Wing, which previously housed the First Lady’s office and served as the main entrance for visiting dignitaries, also contains a secure underground bunker built for emergency presidential use. Its demolition marks the first major alteration to this part of the White House since 1949.

Preservationists warn of irreversible damage

Architectural conservation experts and historians have voiced strong opposition to the project, cautioning that the new ballroom could harm the integrity of the historic site. Critics argue that the East Wing’s demolition undermines the cultural and architectural heritage of the White House, one of America’s most symbolic buildings.

A statement from Trump’s team insisted, however, that “the existing structure of the White House will remain untouched,” claiming the new construction will respect the original design.

Construction begins before formal approval

Despite lacking formal authorization from the National Capital Planning Commission, construction has reportedly already begun. The decision to proceed came amid a partial government shutdown, which has delayed several administrative reviews.

The project’s timing and its symbolic magnitude have sparked debate across Washington, not only on architectural grounds but also for its political implications. Supporters frame it as a visionary modernization effort, while critics view it as an unnecessary and risky showpiece that could redefine the presidential residence’s historic character.