The White House’s East Wing was demolished earlier this month to make way for a new presidential ballroom — a decision by President Trump that has stirred public debate across the country.
The demolition, carried out with funding from private tech companies, has raised questions about legality, transparency, and the preservation of one of America’s most historic buildings.
According to The White House Historical Association, the East Wing — built during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration — traditionally housed offices for the first lady and the White House social staff, and served as a public entrance for visitors. Some have said that the demolition was unnecessary, while supporters contend that the new ballroom could provide a valuable space for official events.
“It seems almost performative and unnecessary,” said Sweekriti Ratnam, a senior and president of the Political Science Club at Carlmont High School. “I think that destroying historical buildings is kind of disrespectful.”
Sophomore Louise Scherrer offers another perspective on the project.
“I don’t think it was meant to disrespect history,” Scherrer said. “It’s more about modernization and trying to make the White House fit today’s needs.”
Some people are concerned about the process and its implications for public trust. Others see the project as an update to an aging building. The debate raises broader questions about the extent of a president’s authority to alter a historic national landmark.
“If the government expects citizens to follow the law, elected leaders must do the same,” said Greer Stone, Palo Alto Council Member, former attorney, and Advanced Placement (AP) Government and Economics teacher. “When changes are made to a building of such historic significance, there should be an independent and public review process.”
The concerns about procedure and transparency were echoed by students, who also considered the potential benefits of updating the building for modern use.
“I understand why people are upset because the East Wing has a lot of history, especially with the First Lady’s office,” Scherrer said. “But I also think the idea of updating the White House isn’t necessarily bad. If the new ballroom is meant for important events or international gatherings, it could serve a real purpose. I just wish the process had been handled more carefully.”
Where the East Wing once stood, only construction equipment and a bare foundation remain, signaling a tangible shift in the White House’s historical landscape.
According to The White House, presidential renovations and additions have changed the White House before, from Theodore Roosevelt’s West Wing expansion to the Truman era reconstruction; however, the East Wing teardown is notable for its speed and the questions it raises about oversight of federal landmarks.
National Trust for Historic Preservation reports that construction of the new ballroom is expected to continue through 2026. Preservation groups and lawmakers have called for clearer oversight of major renovations to ensure that modernization does not compromise the historic elements of the White House.
“A president only rents the White House for four to eight years. It belongs to the American people — and it should be treated that way,” Stone said.
