Which firm led the White House renovation project and who were its subcontractors?

Checked on December 4, 2025
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

The White House says Clark Construction is heading the construction team and AECOM leads the engineering team for the Trump administration’s new White House ballroom project [1]. Official White House material and multiple news outlets frame the project as a privately funded ballroom built amid controversy over East Wing demolition and donor involvement [1] [2] [3].

1. Who the White House names as prime firms — and what that means

The administration’s announcement explicitly names Clark Construction as head of the construction team and AECOM as leader of the engineering team for the ballroom project [1]. In federal and large private construction practice, the firm “heading” construction typically functions as the general contractor coordinating on-site work, while an engineering lead like AECOM designs systems, manages structural and MEP engineering, and oversees technical compliance [1]. Available sources do not mention other firms holding the formal “prime” designation beyond those two in the White House announcement [1].

2. Subcontractors: the record is incomplete in current reporting

None of the provided sources supplies a comprehensive list of subcontractors working under Clark Construction and AECOM on the ballroom project. Major outlets and the White House release cite the two lead firms but do not publish a breakdown of specialty subcontractors (available sources do not mention specific subcontractors). Reporting from Fortune, CNN and others focuses on donors, scope and controversy rather than naming the plumbing, electrical, HVAC, masonry or historic-preservation subcontract firms [3] [4].

3. Why detailed subcontractor lists matter — context from reporting

Local and national transparency advocates routinely point to subcontractor lists as important for evaluating security, safety, labor practices and potential conflicts of interest on high-profile government-adjacent projects; the absence of such publicly available lists can fuel scrutiny [5]. Coverage of this ballroom emphasizes donor funding, demolition of the East Wing and political reactions, suggesting media attention has prioritized funding and oversight questions over granular contractor roll-calls [5] [2].

4. Funding and oversight shape who gets hired

The administration describes the ballroom as privately funded and has published donor lists, which has provoked concern about wealthy donors influencing presidential priorities [3] [5]. Where funding and governance are politically sensitive, prime contractors and their subcontractor selections attract scrutiny for any potential ties to donors or administration officials; existing coverage has highlighted those governance questions more than construction-team rosters [3] [5].

5. Reporting gaps and competing emphases in the sources

White House materials are direct about the two lead firms but stop short of operational detail [1]. News outlets such as CNN and PBS contextualize the renovation within Trump’s broader renovation activity and public backlash, again without naming subcontractors [4] [6]. Fact-checkers and timelines cite cost and historical precedent, not subcontractor lists [7] [5]. The result: consistent naming of Clark Construction and AECOM as leads, and a lack of reporting in these sources of the downstream subcontracting chain [1] [4] [5].

6. How to get the missing details — where to look next

Project procurement documents, building permits, contract filings, or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) releases would likely reveal subcontractor names; those are the standard sources for granular contractor data on government-adjacent projects. None of the supplied sources quotes such procurement records, so locating subcontractor details will require follow-up requests to the White House or contract notices from the General Services Administration or local permitting authorities (available sources do not mention procurement filings).

7. Bottom line: confirmed leads, unknown subcontractor roster

The factual record in the provided reporting names Clark Construction as the construction lead and AECOM as the engineering lead for the White House ballroom [1]. Multiple outlets document controversy over funding, the East Wing demolition and political pushback, but those same sources do not list subcontractors or detailed procurement paperwork — that information is not in the current reporting [1] [3] [5].

Want to dive deeper?
Which companies bid for the White House renovation contract and what were their proposals?
What was the total budget for the White House renovation and how were costs allocated?
Were any conflicts of interest or ethics reviews conducted for firms on the White House renovation?
Which architects, contractors, and specialty subcontractors handled security and historic preservation work?
How has Congress or watchdog groups overseen or audited the White House renovation spending?