Who approves White House renovations and restorations?

1. Who actually reviews big changes — federal commissions with oversight, not unilateral control

Federal oversight of new construction and major renovations at the White House is centered on the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Commission of Fine Arts, which possess review authority over design and siting for projects in the capital, including work affecting the Executive Residence and grounds. The National Park Service (NPS) is the property owner and retains responsibility for care and maintenance of the White House complex, meaning operational and conservation activities often run through the NPS even as aesthetic and planning reviews route to NCPC and the Commission of Fine Arts. Multiple summaries of the approval process describe that these agencies jointly shape the review for significant vertical construction, though their exact legal power varies by the type of work proposed and by statutory exceptions ^[1].

2. The statutory wrinkle — Section 107 and how the White House can be treated differently

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) ordinarily requires federal agencies to assess effects on historic properties, but Section 107 of the NHPA exempts the White House from several of those procedural requirements, meaning the White House can, in practice, bypass some statutory consultations that apply elsewhere. Historically, presidents and administrations have still submitted plans voluntarily for NCPC or Commission of Fine Arts review as a matter of practice and public accountability; legal allowance, however, does not equate to consistent practice, and experts note the exemption creates a discretionary rather than an absolute review path. Coverage of the 2025 controversy emphasizes that despite the exemption, observers and preservation professionals expect voluntary submission and public review for major alterations ^{[2] [4]}.

3. The 2025 East Wing ballroom dispute — work started before formal reviews were filed, per reporting

In October 2025 reporting, news outlets documented that demolition and site‑preparation work began on the East Wing to make way for a proposed ballroom while formal plans had not been submitted to the NCPC; the NCPC chair—who also serves as a White House staff secretary—stated the commission lacks jurisdiction over some demolition or site‑prep activities, complicating the question of whether approvals were legally required before work began. The administration maintains the project will be privately funded, but critics argue that starting physical work before full public review undermines usual planning processes and denies stakeholders the opportunity for consultation ^{[3] [4]}.

4. Who else shapes outcomes — nonprofits, the First Family, and professional groups

Beyond federal agencies, the White House Historical Association plays a central non‑regulatory role by funding and advising interior preservation and acquisitions, working with the curator, chief usher and the Committee for the Preservation of the White House on room refurbishments, though it does not approve construction per se. Preservation NGOs such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation and professional organizations like the American Institute of Architects have publicly pushed for a freeze and for the normal review process to run its course, citing concerns about historic integrity and design rigor. These outside actors influence public opinion and can pressure voluntary compliance with review norms even when statutory exemptions exist ^{[5] [6] [3]}.

5. Legal gaps, practical jurisdiction, and transparency questions that matter

Reporting highlights two friction points: legal ambiguity over demolition versus vertical construction (NCPC’s formal permit jurisdiction is stronger for the latter) and the White House’s statutory exemption under Section 107, which reduces automatic NHPA review. The NCPC chair’s remarks that the agency “does not have jurisdiction over demolition or site preparation work” underscore a gap in routine permitting, and contemporaneous news noted the commission’s operations were affected by government shutdown conditions, further complicating timely review. Observers also flag donor transparency as an accountability issue when administrations claim private funding for major White House projects but do not disclose contributors ^{[4] [3]}.

6. Bottom line: multiple actors, overlapping authorities, and outstanding information still needed

The factual landscape is that multiple federal agencies and advisory bodies influence White House renovations, with the NCPC and Commission of Fine Arts central to review, NPS responsible for stewardship, and the White House Historical Association active on preservation—yet Section 107 and distinctions between demolition and vertical construction leave room for projects to proceed with limited formal review. The 2025 East Wing case illustrates that practice can diverge from expectation: site work began before NCPC submissions and donor lists remain undisclosed, prompting preservationists and professional groups to demand fuller review. To resolve remaining disputes, the public record needs the administration’s submitted plans, the NCPC’s formal determinations, and disclosure of private funding sources so that statutory exemptions do not become de facto routings around historic‑preservation scrutiny ^{[2] [3] [6]}.