Who approves structural changes to the White House?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Major structural changes to the White House generally trigger a multi-agency review process involving professional planners and preservation bodies — most prominently the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Commission of Fine Arts — although the White House has argued some early site work (demolition, site-prep) can proceed without NCPC approval [1] [2]. Preservation groups are contesting recent East Wing demolition, asking courts to halt work until public review, environmental assessment and congressional consideration occur [3] [4].
1. Who traditionally reviews White House construction projects — the institutional line-up
Federal reporting and planning veterans describe a layered approval system for major federal projects: collaborative consultations, conceptual approval, preliminary approval and final approval, with agencies such as the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts normally playing central roles in design and siting reviews [5] [1]. The White House is also a National Historic Landmark, which brings preservation standards into the review mix and usually requires rigorous consideration of historic impacts [6].
2. Where the White House says its authority begins and ends
Officials close to the current White House project have drawn a distinction between demolition/site-preparation and above-ground construction. Will Scharf, chair of the NCPC appointed by President Trump, said the NCPC’s jurisdiction starts when plans are formally submitted for above-ground construction; he and White House spokespeople have maintained demolition did not require NCPC sign-off [1] [2].
3. Where preservationists and former officials see gaps
Preservation groups and former NCPC leaders argue the usual multi-stage process should apply from early consultation through final approval. L. Preston Bryant Jr., a former NCPC chair, described the typical three- to four-stage trajectory that begins with collaborative consultations and continues through conceptual, preliminary and final approvals — a sequence preservationists say the current project has not completed [5] [1].
4. The legal front: lawsuits and demands for pause
The National Trust for Historic Preservation has filed suit seeking to block the ballroom project until it undergoes comprehensive design reviews, environmental assessments, public comment and congressional debate or ratification. That lawsuit highlights a practical question: if demolition proceeds before formal design review, can later approvals meaningfully constrain an already-altered site? [3] [4].
5. The administration’s timetable and the planning commission’s role
White House officials have said final ballroom design plans will be submitted to the NCPC by the end of December 2025, at which point the commission’s “professional staff” will begin formal review, and the chair has pledged a “normal and deliberative” pace for that work [1] [7]. How fast that review moves and whether it can retroactively govern earlier demolition are the precise disputes now before courts and the public [1] [3].
6. Practical implications: jurisdiction, timing and enforcement
The disagreement centers on jurisdictional thresholds: which kinds of activity require agency review and when that review must occur. The White House argues it can initiate site work, while critics say early demolition undercuts statutory review procedures designed to protect public heritage and ensure public input [2] [4]. Available sources do not mention any definitive congressional vote approving the project itself [3] [4].
7. Competing narratives and possible motives
The White House frames the project as a long-awaited modernization and a logistical necessity for state functions and claims established procedures will be followed when plans are filed [1] [7]. Preservation groups frame the same actions as bypassing safeguards that protect historic public property, and they are asking courts to enforce those safeguards [3] [4]. Observers should note that administration appointees now lead the very agencies expected to review the work, a fact that critics say creates potential conflicts over how those agencies interpret their jurisdiction [1] [2].
8. What to watch next
Watch for the formal submission of design plans to the NCPC, any court rulings on the preservation groups’ lawsuits, and subsequent NCPC and Commission of Fine Arts actions. Each step will clarify whether the project will retroactively meet the multi-stage review process described by former agency chairs and preservationists or whether the White House’s interpretation of early-work authority will stand [1] [5] [3].
Limitations: reporting in these sources focuses on the 2025 East Wing/ballroom controversy; available sources do not mention older, definitive statutes or a single line-item congressional approval that explicitly authorizes the current demolition beyond the litigation and agency statements cited above [3] [4].