Which presidential administrations have relied on outdoor tented gatherings at the White House?

1. Tents as a long-standing, practical workaround

White House event planners have historically used large, specially constructed tents on the grounds whenever guest lists exceeded the East Room’s seating for dinner (about 200 seats); contemporary reporting and the White House’s own historical descriptions note that tents are erected with flooring, chandeliers and covered walkways to host state dinners and large summits ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Which administrations explicitly used tents in recent memory

Reporting cites events under President Barack Obama where tents were used — for example, a state dinner in 2009 and the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in 2014 deployed South Lawn tents for large dinner gatherings ^{[4] [6]}. The sources link these examples directly to the broader practice of using tents when indoor capacity was insufficient ^{[4] [3]}.

3. Trump’s critique and the push for a permanent ballroom

President Donald J. Trump repeatedly criticized tented dinners as unsightly and impractical — calling them a “disaster” in bad weather and too far from the White House entrance — and pursued construction of a permanent ballroom to eliminate the need for tents; the administration announced ballroom construction in 2025, explicitly framing it as replacing tents and walkways used for events of more than 200 people ^{[5] [7] [3]}.

4. Historical scale: tents for unusually large state dinners

Tents have not been used merely for modest overflow: historical accounts cited in reporting note much larger gatherings — the 1979 Carter-hosted dinner for Egyptian and Israeli leaders drew roughly 1,300 attendees and required outdoor accommodations — demonstrating that tents are the practical choice for exceptionally large state events ^[3].

5. Institutional framing and competing narratives

The White House’s public materials and advocates cast the ballroom project as continuity with past presidential renovations to meet evolving needs ^[8], while critics frame the project as unnecessary or oversized compared with the tried-and-true tent solution ^{[5] [3]}. The administration’s statement explicitly says presidents and staff "longed for a large event space" and presents the ballroom as solving a 150‑year need ^{[7] [8]}.

6. What the available sources do not say

Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, year‑by‑year list of every administration that used tents going back to the 19th or early 20th centuries; they focus on illustrative recent examples (Obama-era dinners and summits) and on the Trump administration’s decision to build a ballroom to replace tents ^{[4] [7]}. No source in the provided set offers an exhaustive chronology of tent use across all presidencies.

7. Why this matters politically and logistically

The debate over tents versus a permanent ballroom has both logistical and political dimensions: logisticians point to tents’ flexibility for large, atypical gatherings ^[3]; political critics see the permanent ballroom as a costly, high-profile architectural and fundraising project that changes how the public experiences the People’s House ^{[8] [5]}. Each side invokes different priorities — efficiency and preservation of tradition versus permanence, aesthetics, and control of event presentation ^{[3] [8]}.

Conclusion — where reporting converges and diverges

Reporting converges on the facts that tents are the established method for oversized White House events, were used during recent administrations including Obama’s, and became a focal point for the Trump administration’s push to build a ballroom to replace tented capacity ^{[4] [3] [7]}. Sources diverge on framing: some White House materials and supporters frame a permanent ballroom as a historical, necessary upgrade ^[8], while critics and news accounts emphasize the long-standing, workable tent tradition and question the need or scale of a new structure ^{[5] [3]}.