By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump has replaced architect James McCrery II with Shalom Baranes for the White House ballroom project. McCrery, who advised against Trump’s plans to drastically increase the ballroom’s size, reportedly departed the project due to the inability of his team to meet the project’s demanding deadlines and Trump’s desire to expand the project. The new architect brings decades of experience designing government buildings in Washington, D.C. The expansion, initially estimated at $200 million, has ballooned to $300 million and Trump aims to have it completed by 2029, even though no official public review has taken place.
Read the original article here
Trump Fires Ballroom Architect Who Said It Was Too Big, a phrase that immediately conjures images of a power struggle and a clash of egos, seems to be at the heart of this whole debacle. It’s a situation that encapsulates the essence of his administration: a focus on appearances, a disdain for dissenting opinions, and a willingness to bulldoze through obstacles, both literal and metaphorical. The fact that the architect’s primary transgression was seemingly suggesting the ballroom was “too big” is a stark illustration of the environment of sycophancy.
The situation suggests an almost absurd level of control, where the architect’s professional judgment was secondary to the perceived need for a grand, oversized statement. This is the guy who’s supposed to be making sure the structure is safe and functional, but he’s getting the boot because he didn’t feed into the boss’s vision. The dismissal sends a clear message: only “yes” men need apply. Disagreement, even if based on sound professional principles, is not tolerated.
The planned ballroom, or rather, the lack of a plan, is a microcosm of the administration’s broader approach. We’re told the East Wing was demolished without a plan, leaving a potential architectural and structural nightmare. This echoes a pattern of operating without a clear blueprint. The resulting delay in construction is also a clear sign of poor planning. And you know it’s going to fall to the next administration to try and clean up the mess.
The overall impression is one of imperiousness and a disregard for established norms. The whole thing reeks of arrogance. He seems to be caught in a cycle of needing to make a lasting impression and needing to leave his mark. The ballroom is just another opportunity for a legacy project, regardless of practical considerations or the architect’s expert advice.
The firing of the architect appears to fit a well-established pattern. The fact that Trump is known not to pay contractors is not a good sign. It raises serious questions about the potential quality and safety of the final product, especially if corners are cut in pursuit of cost-saving or ego-stroking measures. If the architect was smart, they would have demanded payment up front, knowing this guy’s reputation.
The narrative shifts to one of chaos and potential catastrophe. The implication is that the ballroom might be structurally unsound, ready to collapse. It’s like a perfect metaphor for the whole movement—demolishing the old guard and creating a mess in its place. The whole project is becoming a symbol of hubris, and an example of the kind of disaster that unfolds when ego trumps expertise.
A particularly cutting comment highlights the tragic irony: the ballroom, meant to be a symbol of grandeur, might become a testament to its builder’s downfall. The image of the ballroom’s collapse, literally crushing the man and his legacy, is a powerful visual metaphor. The fact that many believe this will come to pass speaks volumes about the perception of the project.
There’s the underlying sense of a looming disaster, compounded by the lack of planning. The demolition-first approach seems reckless and shortsighted, and suggests the White House is being dismantled as part of a bigger scheme. It’s as if the “plan” is just to tear things down, without a clear vision of what comes next.
The comments also reflect broader political concerns. Some see the ballroom as a metaphor for the whole political movement, suggesting that it’s all about destruction and a lack of clear goals. The phrase “Trumpy” has been suggested as an adjective to describe all things Trump.
The fact that the architect said it was too big is the key here. The whole situation reveals the underlying motivations and priorities that are guiding the project: image over substance, ego over practicality, and a willingness to disregard expert opinion. It’s a situation ripe for legal battles, nonpayment of fees, and potentially, a physical collapse.