For nearly two centuries, the front entrance of the White House has been framed by a series of slender Ionic columns, one of the most recognizable images of American democracy. Now Trump’s appointee wants to rip them out and replace them with something more magnificent.
According to the Washington Post, Rodney Mims Cook Jr., the new chairman of the Fine Arts Commission, publicly suggested replacing the North Portico’s Ionic columns with more ornate Corinthian style at a commission meeting last month (1).
“Corinth is the highest order [of column]That’s what the other two branches of government also have, Cook told the Post. “I can’t understand why the White House didn’t use them initially, at least on the north side, which is considered the front door.”
A White House spokesman told the Post there are no current plans to replace the existing columns, and Cook said he had not discussed the idea directly with the president. But the offer didn’t come out of nowhere.
Trump has favored Corinthian columns for decades — they are a signature feature of Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago — and personally chose them for the White House ballroom currently under construction.
Architects and preservationists are not on board. Steven Semes, professor emeritus of architecture at the University of Notre Dame, warned the Post that changing column styles would fundamentally alter the character of the building, comparing the idea to surgically changing the length of someone’s leg and expecting them to walk normally.
Bruce Redman Becker, an architect and former fine arts commissioner who was ousted by Trump last year, told the Post that the proposal violates accepted historic preservation standards.
But the column controversy is only the latest chapter in a much larger and much more expensive story about how Trump is physically reshaping the People’s House. While the White House insists taxpayers aren’t paying for any of this, the full financial picture may be more complicated than the administration’s framework suggests.
The column proposal comes as Trump’s most ambitious project, the massive new White House ballroom, is still trying to work its way through the approval process with a price tag that won’t stop climbing.
When Trump first announced the ballroom in July 2025, it was planned as a $200 million, 90,000-square-foot event space that could accommodate 650 guests (2). As of October, this figure was $250 million and was designed to accommodate 999 people (3). By December, the cost had doubled to $400 million (4). Trump denied reports that the space would bear his name, instead suggesting it was “the presidential ballroom or something like that” (5).
The project required the complete demolition of the East Wing of the White House; This structure was originally built as a small entryway in 1902 under the direction of Theodore Roosevelt and was greatly expanded to its modern two-story form by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942 (6). It had served as the First Lady’s office since 1977. The demolition took place despite previous assurances from press secretary Karoline Leavitt that “nothing would be demolished” (7).
A federal judge rejected a preservation group’s attempt to block construction in late February, ruling that the National Trust for Historic Preservation was essentially unlikely to succeed (8). The foundation has since filed an amended complaint, arguing that the administration lacks the legal authority to build without congressional approval. The Fine Arts Commission, all members of which were replaced by Trump appointees, approved the design unanimously 6-0 (9). And the National Capital Planning Commission postponed its final vote until April 2 after receiving more than 35,000 public comments, the overwhelming majority of which were against the project (10). NCPC staff recommended approval.
Trump repeatedly insisted that the ballroom would be funded entirely by private donations, and the White House released a list of 37 donors who contributed through the Trust for the National Mall, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit; This means donations are tax deductible. Individual contribution amounts for most donors were not disclosed.
The administration framed the project as an overdue improvement that would save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars currently spent on temporary tent events on the South Lawn (11).
However, the donor list includes many companies with significant federal business. Lockheed Martin, the nation’s largest defense contractor with approximately $54 billion in U.S. government revenue in fiscal year 2025, according to its annual filing (12), reportedly contributed more than $10 million (13). Alphabet donated $22 million in settlement over YouTube’s suspension of Trump after January 6. Other donors include Booz Allen Hamilton, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, tobacco companies Altria and Reynolds American, and cryptocurrency firms Coinbase, Ripple and Tether.
Corporate philanthropy around presidential construction projects is not unprecedented; private donors funded White House improvements decades ago. But the scale here is different, and ethics watchdogs have raised some questions. At the March 5 NCPC hearing, Common Cause’s Abigail Bellows noted that many of the corporate donors were either under federal investigation or competing for government contracts and called the regulation a potential conflict of interest (14).
Read more: 8 essential money moves you should make after saving $10,000
Read more: You can now invest in this $1 billion private real estate fund starting from just $10.
The “no taxpayer dollars” line covers construction. It doesn’t necessarily cover anything after that.
Congress typically allocates only a few million dollars a year for repairs and restoration of the Executive Residence. Adding a 90,000-square-foot, climate-controlled structure with floor-to-ceiling bulletproof glass to this footprint could further increase operating and maintenance costs, even though Carrier donated its first HVAC system (15).
According to the White House’s initial announcement, the Secret Service will provide “necessary security enhancements and modifications” for the new site (16). It is not yet clear whether these costs are within or outside the $400 million budget.
Detailing the project’s planning process, Engineering News-Record warned that privately funded federal construction could impose sub-obligations (including expanded service capacity, additional security personnel, and long-term maintenance) that last well beyond the original structure and lack an automatic source of funding (17). The Government Accountability Office has flagged similar dynamics at the Smithsonian Institution, where donor-funded museums are expanding the federal campus and Congress is trying to cover long-term operating costs.
Columns and ballrooms do not happen in isolation. Since returning to office, Trump has been steadily reshaping the White House and its surroundings.
Originally designed during the Kennedy administration, the Rose Garden was bulldozed and replaced with a stone patio similar to the one at Mar-a-Lago (18). New statues of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton were installed on the tarmac earlier this month – but not without some confusion. The White House initially told reporters that the statues depicted Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, then issued a correction 90 minutes later (19).
The Lincoln Bathroom has been completely renovated, replacing its original Art Deco green tiles with black-and-white marble. Gold accents were added throughout. A “Presidential Walk of Fame” featuring portraits of past presidents was created at the West Wing Columns; minus Joe Biden, his place was filled with an autopen photo (20).
Lafayette Square, the park across from the White House, is being redesigned. The administration also announced plans for a new 33,000-square-foot underground visitor screening facility and a possible second-story addition to the West Wing colonnade to visually offset the expanded East Wing (21).
White House communications director Steven Cheung defended the changes, writing about X that “construction has always been part of the evolution of the White House” and that the building “needs to be modernized” (20). Each project individually can be defended as a routine upgrade. But taken together, they amount to what architects and preservationists call the most significant physical transformation of the White House in modern history, driven largely by the taste of a single president.
It is not yet known whether the White House columns will actually be moved. The proposal is still in its early stages, and the White House says no changes are planned.
But the broader pattern is worth watching. The East Wing demolition followed a similar pattern: An idea was pitched, assurances were given that nothing would be demolished, and within a few months the building was demolished. The administration defended each step as an improvement. Critics disagree, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the overwhelming majority of public commentators weighing in on the NCPC.
Less discussed is that the costs associated with these renovations will likely extend well beyond the construction phase. Ongoing maintenance, expanded security infrastructure, and increased service demands do not end when a president’s term ends, and those bills will fall on future administrations and ultimately taxpayers.
The NCPC’s final ballroom vote will be held on April 2. More than 35,000 people have already taken part in the voting.
Join over 250,000 readers and get Moneywise’s best stories and exclusive interviews first; Clear information compiled and presented weekly. Subscribe now.
—
We rely only on vetted sources and reliable third-party reports. For details, see editorial ethics and rules.
Washington Post (1); PBS News (2); CNBC (3); Top (4, 15); ABC News (5); Al Jazeera (6); NPR (7); NBC News (8); US News and World Report (9); Architect Newspaper (10); Snopes (11, 16); Lockheed Martin (12); CBS News (13); Art Newspaper (14); Engineering News-Register (17); Fast Company (18); Daily Monster (19); News week (20); CNN (21)
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without any warranty.
