Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Who are the artisans responsible for gilding at the White House?
Executive summary
Reporting consistently says that much of the recent gilding in the Oval Office and other White House spaces traces to artisans brought from Mar‑a‑Lago or hired because they worked there previously, with specific fingers pointed at a cabinetmaker named John Icart and unnamed Mar‑a‑Lago craftsmen [1] [2] [3]. Coverage also notes that some gilt pieces are historic items from the White House collection rather than newly made work, and that the White House has helped match or source items while outside craftsmen were contracted to fabricate additional flourishes [1] [2] [4].
1. Who the press names: a cabinetmaker flown on Air Force One
Multiple outlets identify John Icart, a 70‑year‑old cabinetmaker from Florida, as a central artisan credited with adding gilded carvings and cherubs to the Oval Office; The Guardian reports he was reportedly flown to Washington on Air Force One to reproduce the flourishes he had made at Mar‑a‑Lago [1]. Newsweek and other outlets quote White House sources or the president asserting that the same artisan who worked on Mar‑a‑Lago made the Oval Office gold accents, reinforcing that one or a few known craftsmen from Trump’s private properties did this work [3] [2].
2. Mar‑a‑Lago craftwork followed into the People’s House
Multiple reports emphasize that decorative elements—and in some cases whole objects—were moved from Mar‑a‑Lago into the Oval Office, and that diminutive cherubs and other gilt pieces were “shipped in” from the Florida estate rather than fabricated in Washington alone [2] [1]. Journalists cite White House spokespeople and visual comparisons that link the style and some physical objects to Trump’s South Florida residence [2] [1].
3. Not all gold is newly made — some items are historic White House collection pieces
Reporting also makes clear that some of the gilt objects placed on mantels and elsewhere are historic pieces already in the White House collection — for example, 19th‑century French compotiers and gilded urns associated with earlier presidencies have been redeployed in the room — meaning not every gilded object represents a new artisan commission [1] [2]. The New York Times notes the White House Historical Association helping to recreate or procure items for a replica Oval Office, indicating a mix of conservation, reproduction and new work [4].
4. White House role and sourcing: official help plus outside contractors
The New York Times reported the White House “helping with the transformation” but also that outside organizations had to “go out and find our own people to make the things not on the shelf,” suggesting the administration and outside groups both helped source or commission pieces [4]. CNN and Newsweek similarly report that the president reviewed plans with curators and that new gilt elements were installed alongside historical objects, highlighting collaboration between White House staff and external artisans [2] [3].
5. Disagreement, skepticism and the “Home Depot” angle
Media outlets and critics recorded skepticism from some observers who speculated pieces might be inexpensive reproductions or mass‑market items spray‑painted gold; the administration and the president responded by stressing the objects were real gold and made by reputable artisans [5] [2]. Business and design commentators criticized the aesthetic and questioned whether newly added architectural flourishes were appropriate to the room’s historical style [3].
6. What the available reporting does not specify
The available sources name John Icart and refer broadly to Mar‑a‑Lago artisans, White House curators, and outside contractors, but they do not provide a comprehensive vendor list, contracts, invoices, or a full roster of gilders, gilding shops, conservators, or unionized craftsmen who worked on every gilded element [1] [4] [2]. Procurement details, whether federal contracting rules applied, payment sources for specific artisans, and technical specs (e.g., whether pieces are gold leaf, vermeil, or spray finish) are not fully documented in the cited reports [5] [6].
7. Why this matters: provenance, preservation and public scrutiny
Who physically applied gold or supplied gilded décor matters for historical preservation, taxpayer oversight, and authenticity debates: reuse of White House collection pieces raises conservation questions, while bringing private‑estate artisans into a federal residence prompts scrutiny over sourcing and funding [1] [4]. Journalists and critics have linked these choices to broader political and cultural critiques of style and spending alongside coverage of a proposed gilded ballroom and other large changes to the estate [7] [6].
Summary: reporting points most clearly to John Icart and Mar‑a‑Lago artisans as principal makers of the new gilded flourishes, supplemented by historic White House items and external contractors, but public sources so far do not publish a full, itemized list of every artisan or contractor involved [1] [2] [4] [3].