Which White House administrations have used tents for official events?
Executive summary
Tents erected on the South Lawn have been a recurring solution for U.S. presidents who needed more capacity for official entertaining: multiple recent administrations — notably Barack Obama and Joe Biden — held state dinners and large official functions in temporary tents, and successive presidents for “decades” have relied on this workaround [1] [2] [3] [4]. President Donald Trump has publicly criticized the tents and launched a project to build a permanent White House ballroom, arguing it will eliminate reliance on temporary structures [5] [6] [7].
1. Tents as routine practice: how administrations used the South Lawn
The White House has long used specially constructed tents on its grounds to expand guest capacity for state dinners and major events when indoor rooms like the East Room or State Dining Room were too small; multiple sources say this is the standard workaround for larger official functions [4] [2] [3]. The Obama administration frequently employed tents for state dinners and large summits — the archives and White House curator’s Q&A list specific examples, including dinners for India , Mexico , Great Britain , France , the Nordic countries , Italy , and the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit — showing tents were used for high‑profile, formal state business [1] [2].
2. Biden’s use: outdoor state dinners in recent practice
Reporting and compiled summaries indicate President Joe Biden held multiple state dinners outdoors using tents — one summary states Biden held four of his six state dinners outdoors under tented setups — underscoring that reliance on tents continued into the most recent administration prior to the current construction controversy [4].
3. Trump’s critique and the push for a permanent ballroom
Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized tented state dinners as ungainly and costly and subsequently pursued construction of a permanent East Wing ballroom intended to end the need for tented events; the White House announced the ballroom project explicitly to “eliminate reliance on temporary tents” and to provide a permanent event space for future administrations [6] [7]. Coverage notes Trump’s framing of tents as an aesthetic and logistical problem, and the administration argued a ballroom would serve future presidents [5] [6].
4. Costs, logistics and reputational arguments on both sides
Critics and insiders describe tented state dinners as expensive and logistically complicated — former White House staff quoted by news outlets said tents can cost around $1 million or more per event and produce wear on the South Lawn [5] [2] [8]. Proponents of the permanent ballroom argue it would reduce recurring costs and lawn damage and centralize security and hospitality functions [9] [7]. Opponents have raised historic‑preservation and procedural objections to construction timing and approvals, producing lawsuits and public review disputes over whether building should proceed as planned [7].
5. A long-standing, cross-administration practice — and what reporting does not settle
Multiple outlets characterize tent use as a “decades”-long, cross‑administration practice for events that exceed indoor capacity, and chronicled instances under Obama and Biden in particular [2] [3] [4]. Sources make clear that tents were the default workaround for space constraints, but the provided reporting does not catalog every administration that ever used tents nor list every tented event across the entire 20th and 21st centuries; it documents repeated, high‑profile use in recent administrations and describes the practice as longstanding [2] [1].
6. Why this matters politically and culturally
The debate over tents versus a permanent ballroom is more than décor: it touches on costs, access, fundraising optics and preservation of the White House grounds — issues the Trump administration framed as reasons to build while preservation groups and critics have invoked process and historic integrity concerns [5] [7]. Reporting shows tents were a pragmatic fixture for recent administrations (Obama, Biden) and that Trump’s project arose in direct response to that practice, but it also shows disagreement about whether a permanent ballroom is the right solution [6] [7] [5].