Waitlisted for consideration? That sounds very important. Congrats.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

there is nothing he is doing that's out of the ordinary, except that you aren't paying for it.

---

Except that it IS out of the ordinary. Every major change to the White House since the west and east wings were built in 1902 has gone through extensive review and scrutiny, which included Congressional review and approval, regardless of how it was funded. With the exception of the 1950-1952 reconstruction there has never been any major demolition of any portion of the White House structure (the fire of 1812 doesn't count as demolition in this context).

Between 1814 and 1950 the only significant demolition that took place was the removal of the grand staircase in 1920 to enlarge the State Dining Room, which was included in the McKim, Mead & White project which built the west and east wings.

Yes, renovations to the WH complex are common. The scope of this project and the lack of review by all the standard agencies and historical preservation boards, however, is not common. Even renovations that seem innocuous, like changing the wall coverings is a significant matter in the context of the WH and its preservation to the point that the silk wall coverings in the Red and Green rooms are actually hung over the walls and not adhered to them like normal practice anywhere else.

Now before you accuse me of clutching my pearls, I'll repeat that I do think a component of this nature is much-needed and will serve a valuable purpose in the WH complex, but just because it's needed and being paid for private parties does not indemnify it from criticism and scrutiny. There are indeed some valid criticisms of how the process is being handled, and I would hope the folks on here can recognize that instead of just taking the normal default position that anything for which Trump is criticized must mean it's the best thing since sliced bread.

coolerguy12 said:

---

Waitlisted for consideration? That sounds very important. Congrats.

---

Openings in the Chief Usher's office are exceedingly rare. I was disappointed when Gary Walters retired. He and I had been talking regularly for several years about how I could fit into his team, but an opening never came up for him to bring me on before his retirement. The Chief Usher's office has been fairly unstable since then and influenced too much by politics of the various administrations.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

is he knocking down the entire east wing or just the portico and then adding the ball room? Commenters on X are saying they're just removing the portico. Others are saying he changes his mind and is tearing it all down.

Whats the truth?

---

The entire east wing is being demolished, and photos confirm it. Trump previously said the building would not be affected - that the ballroom would be near, but not touch the existing east wing.

---

When renovating buildings, especially old ones, plans changed. Watch some This Old House for reference.

I heard that they ran into issues with the structure during demotion of the portico. I also imagine the East Wing was substandard for HVAC, power, lighting, plumbing, fire suppression, security, etc. There is nothing historic about old mechanical systems, asbestos, and concrete painted white.

Roof also looked in poor condition. Finally, they may be better able to manage the overall aesthetic and scale of ballroom by reworking the East Wing.

Thank God Trump is managing this.

---

I like it that Trump takes the approach of better to ask forgiveness than permission. Then he doesn't ask for forgiveness.

He's an experienced developer/builder. He knows what it takes to get projects done efficiently, on time, and under budget. He also understands that during complicated renovations that plans change from one minute to the next depending on what they find in the old structure.

This uproar is just the left venting their outrage at not being in control and once again having to watch Trump take the initiative and get things done that will be popular with the public, be beneficial to his administration, and leave an indelible historical mark on Washington. Things that can't undo. It eats them alive.

Frankly, I was surprised that the White House did not have a proper ballroom. When JFK was in office, Jackie often had concerts with the leading classical artists of the day but I guess those were in the East Room, which is in the residence section, I think?

Quote:

---

Between 1814 and 1950 the only significant demolition that took place was the removal of the grand staircase in 1920 to enlarge the State Dining Room, which was included in the McKim, Mead & White project which built the west and east wings.

---

What a load of BS. They basically tore down the entire west wing for FDR. And the east wing was basically gutted to accomodate a bunker.

TexAgs91 said:

---

The dems still got it. They throw **** at the wall, any old **** will do, and Republicans jump up and set the record straight rather than ignoring them or pointing at the dems and laughing.

---

It's like playing poker with someone who keeps coming up with a pair of deuces and continues to throw down thinking he's going to win the hand.

It's pretty laughable, actually.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Between 1814 and 1950 the only significant demolition that took place was the removal of the grand staircase in 1920 to enlarge the State Dining Room, which was included in the McKim, Mead & White project which built the west and east wings.

---

What a load of BS. They basically tore down the entire west wing for FDR. And the east wing was basically gutted to accomodate a bunker.

---

This is incorrect.

The West Wing was not torn down for FDR. There was a major fire in the West Wing in 1929 and it was rebuilt. The rejected expansion proposal I posted on a previous page of this thread was proposed as part of the project to rebuild the West Wing. Ultimately, the reconstruction was only approved within the original footprint of the building (the exterior of which survived the fire and remained standing).

As for the the East Wing, it was not "gutted to accommodate a bunker;" it was originally a smaller structure that was expanded to hide construction of the bunker.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

there is nothing he is doing that's out of the ordinary, except that you aren't paying for it.

---

Except that it IS out of the ordinary. Every major change to the White House since the west and east wings were built in 1902 has gone through extensive review and scrutiny, which included Congressional review and approval, regardless of how it was funded.

---

Congressional oversight? I'm not sure that's correct.

The Committee for the Preservation of the Whitehouse is who oversees the potential renovations. The National Capital Planning Commission oversees construction.

Though guess who appoints people to the Preservation committee? Yep, the President. It's really a formality.

It's not like Obama had to go through scrutiny for his 350 million reno, or to add a basketball court.

aggiehawg said:

---

Frankly, I was surprised that the White House did not have a proper ballroom. When JFK was in office, Jackie often had concerts with the leading classical artists of the day but I guess those were in the East Room, which is in the residence section, I think?

---

Yes, the East Room was the standard venue for events of this nature until modern presidents started erecting tents on the south lawn to accommodate more people than the East Room can hold.

Quote:

---

Congressional oversight? I'm not sure that's correct.

---

Congress has always been involved in the appropriation of funds for major WH projects because the normal appropriation for WH operations is not typically enough to accommodate large-scale projects.

ETA, and what's your source for this:

Quote:

---

It's not like Obama had to go through scrutiny for his 350 million reno

---

Since this board considers Grok an acceptable authority ...
https://x.com/i/grok/share/593Yqq1BmFLobpTOzKpw1BJFp

And they were all paid for with taxpayer funds.

Next.

I'm sending him a "Trump Palace" neon sign for Christmas to mount above the new ballroom on the outside.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Between 1814 and 1950 the only significant demolition that took place was the removal of the grand staircase in 1920 to enlarge the State Dining Room, which was included in the McKim, Mead & White project which built the west and east wings.

---

What a load of BS. They basically tore down the entire west wing for FDR. And the east wing was basically gutted to accomodate a bunker.

---

This is incorrect.

The West Wing was not torn down for FDR. There was a major fire in the West Wing in 1929 and it was rebuilt. The rejected expansion proposal I posted on a previous page of this thread was proposed as part of the project to rebuild the West Wing. Ultimately, the reconstruction was only approved within the original footprint of the building (the exterior of which survived the fire and remained standing).

As for the the East Wing, it was not "gutted to accommodate a bunker;" it was originally a smaller structure that was expanded to hide construction of the bunker.

---

Except when you look at pictures of those demolitions it doesn't align with how you try to minimize it.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Quote:

---

Congressional oversight? I'm not sure that's correct.

---

Congress has always been involved in the appropriation of funds for major WH projects because the normal appropriation for WH operations is not typically enough to accommodate large-scale projects.

ETA, and what's your source for this:

Quote:

---

It's not like Obama had to go through scrutiny for his 350 million reno

---

---

Appropriation of funds yes, review of project no. Section 107 of the National Historic Preservation Act specifically exempts the White House from the Section 106 review process.

Teslag said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Between 1814 and 1950 the only significant demolition that took place was the removal of the grand staircase in 1920 to enlarge the State Dining Room, which was included in the McKim, Mead & White project which built the west and east wings.

---

What a load of BS. They basically tore down the entire west wing for FDR. And the east wing was basically gutted to accomodate a bunker.

---

This is incorrect.

The West Wing was not torn down for FDR. There was a major fire in the West Wing in 1929 and it was rebuilt. The rejected expansion proposal I posted on a previous page of this thread was proposed as part of the project to rebuild the West Wing. Ultimately, the reconstruction was only approved within the original footprint of the building (the exterior of which survived the fire and remained standing).

As for the the East Wing, it was not "gutted to accommodate a bunker;" it was originally a smaller structure that was expanded to hide construction of the bunker.

---

Except when you look at pictures of those demolitions it doesn't align with how you try to minimize it.

---

The East Wing was barely even a building before the expansion was done. The East Wing basically consisted of the portion where the building we now recognize as the East Wing connects to the East Colonnade. All they did was remove the porte cochere and make the windows on the south end match the colonnade.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Quote:

---

Congressional oversight? I'm not sure that's correct.

---

Congress has always been involved in the appropriation of funds for major WH projects because the normal appropriation for WH operations is not typically enough to accommodate large-scale projects.

---

Ok, but that doesn't apply here.

He's literally saving us hundreds of millions by privately funding it, and the complaint is that we didnt have to go through Congress? Or am I misunderstanding? Typically that is a good thing, on both accounts.

Quote:

---

ETA, and what's your source for this:

Quote:

---

Quote:
It's not like Obama had to go through scrutiny for his 350 million reno

---

---

I lived through it, and if not for the novelty of the basketball court, I'm not sure I'd have known he did it.

It didn't get an ounce of scrutiny from the country. Yet it was a bigger budget, affected more of the grounds, and cost the tax payers money.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Between 1814 and 1950 the only significant demolition that took place was the removal of the grand staircase in 1920 to enlarge the State Dining Room, which was included in the McKim, Mead & White project which built the west and east wings.

---

What a load of BS. They basically tore down the entire west wing for FDR. And the east wing was basically gutted to accomodate a bunker.

---

This is incorrect.

The West Wing was not torn down for FDR. There was a major fire in the West Wing in 1929 and it was rebuilt. The rejected expansion proposal I posted on a previous page of this thread was proposed as part of the project to rebuild the West Wing. Ultimately, the reconstruction was only approved within the original footprint of the building (the exterior of which survived the fire and remained standing).

As for the the East Wing, it was not "gutted to accommodate a bunker;" it was originally a smaller structure that was expanded to hide construction of the bunker.

---

Except when you look at pictures of those demolitions it doesn't align with how you try to minimize it.

---

The East Wing was barely even a building before the expansion was done. The East Wing basically consisted of the portion where the building we now recognize as the East Wing connects to the East Colonnade. All they did was remove the porte cochere and make the windows on the south end match the colonnade.

---

Here's a picture of your "minor renovations" of it from May 1950 in Truman's 1949 project. Stop gaslighting us.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

ETA, and what's your source for this:

Quote:

---

Quote:
It's not like Obama had to go through scrutiny for his 350 million reno

---

---

I lived through it, and if not for the novelty of the basketball court, I'm not sure I'd have known he did it.

It didn't get an ounce of scrutiny from the country. Yet it was a bigger budget, affected more of the grounds, and cost the tax payers money.

---

LOL. So we're just supposed to take your word for it? I have it on good authority that's not how F16 works.

What is your source that shows Obama spent $350 million on WH renovations, which included the basketball court? I'm really curious, because my due diligence seems to produce a result that says you don't have a source to back up your claim.

Teslag said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Between 1814 and 1950 the only significant demolition that took place was the removal of the grand staircase in 1920 to enlarge the State Dining Room, which was included in the McKim, Mead & White project which built the west and east wings.

---

What a load of BS. They basically tore down the entire west wing for FDR. And the east wing was basically gutted to accomodate a bunker.

---

This is incorrect.

The West Wing was not torn down for FDR. There was a major fire in the West Wing in 1929 and it was rebuilt. The rejected expansion proposal I posted on a previous page of this thread was proposed as part of the project to rebuild the West Wing. Ultimately, the reconstruction was only approved within the original footprint of the building (the exterior of which survived the fire and remained standing).

As for the the East Wing, it was not "gutted to accommodate a bunker;" it was originally a smaller structure that was expanded to hide construction of the bunker.

---

Except when you look at pictures of those demolitions it doesn't align with how you try to minimize it.

---

The East Wing was barely even a building before the expansion was done. The East Wing basically consisted of the portion where the building we now recognize as the East Wing connects to the East Colonnade. All they did was remove the porte cochere and make the windows on the south end match the colonnade.

---

Here's a picture of your "minor renovations" of it from May 1950 in Truman's 1949 project. Stop gaslighting us.

---

Re-read my post.

ETA ... I'll help you out.
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3569777/replies/71117049

Quote:

---

With the exception of the 1950-1952 reconstruction there has never been any major demolition of any portion of the White House structure

---

Here's more "not demolition" from March of 1950 of the actual interior of the white house. Remember, none of this happened.

Teslag said:

---

Here's more "not demolition" from March of 1950 of the actual interior of the white house. Remember, none of this happened.

---

Again, re-read my post.

Are you slow or something? Is reading comprehension not your thing?

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Here's more "not demolition" from March of 1950 of the actual interior of the white house. Remember, none of this happened.

---

Again, re-read my post.

Are you slow or something? Is reading comprehension not your thing?

---

Yes, you tried to frame a window convienently stopping at 1950. And then tried to pretend Congress had any say over the review of this.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

ETA, and what's your source for this:

Quote:

---

Quote:
It's not like Obama had to go through scrutiny for his 350 million reno

---

---

I lived through it, and if not for the novelty of the basketball court, I'm not sure I'd have known he did it.

It didn't get an ounce of scrutiny from the country. Yet it was a bigger budget, affected more of the grounds, and cost the tax payers money.

---

LOL. So we're just supposed to take your word for it? I have it on good authority that's not how F16 works.

What is your source that shows Obama spent $350 million on WH renovations, which included the basketball court? I'm really curious, because my due diligence seems to produce a result that says you don't have a source to back up your claim.

---

My apologies, I thought you were referring to the public scrutiny that didnt happen.

It's already been posted on this thread, but does CNN count as a source?

A CNN report from 2010:

$376 million White House renovation during the Obama Administration.

Where was the Democrat outrage then? pic.twitter.com/MvLVDFcTru

— Christian Collins (@CollinsforTX) October 22, 2025

4stringAg said:

---

The hue and cry over this is beyond stupid. With all due respect to your post Ryan which does at least attempt to get into the nuance of the process, most that I've seen aren't complaining about the process, most are complaining out of complete and utter stupidity and ignorance because its Trump doing it when many Presidents prior have effected renovations.

---

I agree there's a lot of gnashing of teeth for stupid reasons, not the least of which is "if Trump does it, it's bad."

All of this is more of an attempt to portray Trump as a wannabe king.

The media is nothing but a propaganda outlet for democrats. They don't even cover actual scandals that democrats perpetrate.

Teslag said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Here's more "not demolition" from March of 1950 of the actual interior of the white house. Remember, none of this happened.

---

Again, re-read my post.

Are you slow or something? Is reading comprehension not your thing?

---

Yes, you tried to frame a window convienently stopping at 1950. And then tried to pretend Congress had any say over the review of this.

---

I don't think you even read your own post.

Your post, which I responded to had absolutely nothing to do with the Residence or the 1950-52 reconstruction. Your post made inaccurate claims about construction which took place on the west and east wings long before the 1950-52 reconstruction took place.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3569777/replies/71117222

Quote:

---

What a load of BS. They basically tore down the entire west wing for FDR. And the east wing was basically gutted to accomodate a bunker.

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Between 1814 and 1950 the only significant demolition that took place was the removal of the grand staircase in 1920 to enlarge the State Dining Room, which was included in the McKim, Mead & White project which built the west and east wings.

---

What a load of BS. They basically tore down the entire west wing for FDR. And the east wing was basically gutted to accomodate a bunker.

---

This is incorrect.

The West Wing was not torn down for FDR. There was a major fire in the West Wing in 1929 and it was rebuilt. The rejected expansion proposal I posted on a previous page of this thread was proposed as part of the project to rebuild the West Wing. Ultimately, the reconstruction was only approved within the original footprint of the building (the exterior of which survived the fire and remained standing).

As for the the East Wing, it was not "gutted to accommodate a bunker;" it was originally a smaller structure that was expanded to hide construction of the bunker.

---

Below from the previous page. It doesn't look like "the fire the exterior of which survived the fire and remained standing"...

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Between 1814 and 1950 the only significant demolition that took place was the removal of the grand staircase in 1920 to enlarge the State Dining Room, which was included in the McKim, Mead & White project which built the west and east wings.

---

What a load of BS. They basically tore down the entire west wing for FDR. And the east wing was basically gutted to accomodate a bunker.

---

This is incorrect.

The West Wing was not torn down for FDR. There was a major fire in the West Wing in 1929 and it was rebuilt. The rejected expansion proposal I posted on a previous page of this thread was proposed as part of the project to rebuild the West Wing. Ultimately, the reconstruction was only approved within the original footprint of the building (the exterior of which survived the fire and remained standing).

As for the the East Wing, it was not "gutted to accommodate a bunker;" it was originally a smaller structure that was expanded to hide construction of the bunker.

---

Below from the previous page. It doesn't look like "the fire the exterior of which survived the fire and remained standing"...

---

I'll eat some crow here and admit I got the 1930 reconstruction mixed up with a later expansion. I forgot that was when the second story got added. Your photo is not from the 1930 reconstruction. What can I say - it's a lot of activity to try to keep track of and those projects were very close together.

I'll take the L on that point.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Karoline just confirmed what I heard yesterday on Fox... the total demolition of the East Wing was done at the recommendation of the architects / construction managers in order to bring the building up to modern structural standards, etc.

About 1/3 of the WH briefing questions were on the East Wing, including MSM dolts saying "does this mean Trump can just tear down anything he wants?". Libs, so dumb they actually impress with their dip****tery and faux rage.

---

To be fair, Trump didn't really help by saying he can do whatever he wants to the WH.