Hold onto your hard hats—James McCrery, the architect once tapped by President Trump to design the White House ballroom, is now set to judge his own work.
McCrery's appointment to the Commission of Fine Arts, announced in a court filing late Thursday, places him among four new members selected by President Trump to oversee the review of the ambitious ballroom project. This development emerges amid a lawsuit by the National Trust for Historic Preservation aiming to halt East Wing construction until the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission complete their evaluations, and Congress gives its approval. The $400 million endeavor, managed by the Executive Residence at the White House, has already stirred significant attention.
Looking back, McCrery served on the Commission of Fine Arts from 2019 to 2024, bringing a wealth of experience to the table. Alongside him, Trump appointed Mary Anne Carter, chairwoman of the National Endowment for the Arts, conservative writer Roger Kimball, and Matthew Taylor of Washington, D.C. Notably, this shake-up follows the dismissal of six sitting commission members in October.
According to CBS News, the timing of these appointments raises eyebrows, especially as court documents reveal the National Park Service accepted a donation for the project on Nov. 13. The funds, likely from a nonprofit entity, were transferred to the Executive Residence, though the exact amount remains undisclosed.
Critics are already pointing out potential conflicts, questioning how McCrery can impartially review a project he once spearheaded. Is this a case of the fox guarding the henhouse?
Speaking of oversight, the White House had planned an informational briefing for the Commission of Fine Arts this week, but it’s been pushed to next week. They’re aiming to wrap up the CFA review by March 19, while a final submission to the National Capital Planning Commission is set for Jan. 30. The administration hopes for a decisive NCPC vote on March 5.
Jessica Bowron, acting National Park Service director, defended the setup, stating, “NPS determined that it was in the best interests of the United States for EXR to contract for and directly manage the Project.”
Continuing her explanation, Bowron added, “EXR is therefore handling project management for the Project, meaning that it is in control of all aspects of the day-to-day execution of the Project, including its scope, schedule, budget, design, and completion.” But let’s be real—handing total control to an internal body while sidestepping broader scrutiny doesn’t exactly scream transparency, does it?
With aboveground East Wing construction not slated to begin until at least April, there’s a long road ahead. Typically, securing final approval from both commissions takes months, if not years, for projects of this scale.
Now, let’s unpack this lawsuit from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Their push to delay construction until all boxes are checked isn’t just nitpicking—it’s a reminder that process matters, especially for a historic site like the White House.
Yet, there’s another side to consider. The urgency to modernize and enhance the White House shouldn’t be bogged down by endless bureaucratic hoops, especially when private donations are footing much of the bill.
Still, the optics of McCrery’s dual role can’t be ignored. When someone designs a project and then sits on the panel judging it, the public has every right to question the fairness of the process.
This isn’t about tearing down the administration’s goals but about ensuring accountability. If we’re going to spend $400 million on a ballroom, shouldn’t every decision withstand the brightest spotlight?
Ultimately, this saga is less about a ballroom and more about trust in how our national treasures are handled. With White House officials meeting NCPC staffers this month, let’s hope clarity—not just concrete—starts pouring soon.