By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The White House terminated all six members of the Commission of Fine Arts, an independent federal agency advising on design and aesthetics. The firings, communicated via email, come as President Trump pursues significant construction projects in Washington, D.C., including a planned ballroom and a potential triumphal arch. The dismissed members were appointed by former President Biden, and the move mirrors similar actions taken with other boards and organizations. The government staff are now furloughed.
Read the original article here
White House fires all six members of independent federal agency charged with advising the president on design. The news that all six members of the Commission of Fine Arts have been unceremoniously dismissed is, to put it mildly, striking. This agency, designed to be independent, was established to offer the president advice on matters of urban planning and historical preservation, essentially acting as a crucial check on design decisions, particularly those concerning federal buildings and historic districts. The very nature of this advisory role underscores the importance of its independence. Yet, the White House, acting on behalf of the President, has decided to sweep the entire board clean. This move is nothing short of a massive shakeup.
The manner of the firings, as reported, is equally telling. The dismissals arrived via email from an advisor within the Presidential Personnel Office. No deliberation, no consultation, just a blunt notification that their services were no longer required. The swiftness and impersonality of this action speak volumes. The email’s phrasing, “terminated, effective immediately,” leaves no room for doubt about the finality of the decision. This kind of action raises some immediate questions: What kind of design plans could warrant such a dramatic response? What was the catalyst for this complete overhaul of the agency?
One can only speculate on the motives, but the timing is suspicious, especially in light of reports of ongoing renovations, or what some are calling a “massive overhaul,” of the East Wing. These renovations, or perhaps more accurately, demolition efforts, appear to have been undertaken without a clear, pre-approved plan in place. This lack of planning is concerning given the historical significance of the White House and the potential risks involved in such a project. It seems that the White House may have been unhappy with the lack of approval.
The dismissal of the Commission’s members also raises questions about transparency and oversight. If an independent agency is meant to provide unbiased guidance, why eliminate the voices that might offer critical perspectives? This action potentially silences any concerns about the proposed projects and clears the way for the President to pursue his vision without any real pushback. It seems that the President’s vision may have included some less-than-tasteful design choices.
The implications extend beyond the immediate design projects. This action, once again, highlights the erosion of established norms. If an agency’s independence is compromised, what other safeguards are vulnerable? It underscores the inherent tension between executive power and the checks and balances designed to limit it. A president’s ability to simply remove those who disagree with his plans effectively undermines the very purpose of an independent advisory body.
The situation has a definite tone of absurdity. The rumors and speculation are flying; is the president building a palace? Perhaps the East Wing is becoming a personalized monument? Will the new designs adhere to standards of historical preservation, or will they be filled with gold leaf, as has been suggested? It’s not difficult to see why this particular scenario could be met with disapproval by those who are supposed to protect the country’s cultural heritage.
Then there is the issue of what these renovations will actually entail. The demolition of parts of the White House, the very symbol of American democracy, is a serious undertaking. The fact that the design choices might be made under the influence of those who stand to gain financially from these projects raises serious questions about corruption. What has become of the historic materials removed from the building? Hopefully, some of the architectural artifacts have been preserved.
One might question the meaning of the word “independent” in this context. The agency’s core function is now in question. The President, acting on his own authority, has dismantled the board. This signals a complete disregard for historical preservation and any input that doesn’t align with the President’s vision.
It’s also worth considering the broader context of these events. In the current political climate, it’s increasingly clear that the President is willing to push the boundaries of presidential power. By firing the members of the Commission of Fine Arts, he is essentially removing any roadblocks to his design plans. This act, whether intentional or not, will have a long-lasting impact.