A Balance Must Be Struck Between Modernization and Respect for Architectural Precedent
As someone who served as Chief of Protocol of the United States during the George W. Bush administration, my team and I had the privilege, and sometimes the challenge, of welcoming foreign heads of state, prime ministers, and dignitaries at the White House.
Through those years I learned intimately how the White House complex functions not only as the residence of the President, but also as a stage for diplomacy, ceremony, and hospitality.
One recurring, practical frustration we often faced had little to do with policy or protocol, but everything to do with space.
The Executive Residence simply did not offer the capacity or layout to host all the guests in the manner the occasion called for.
Even modestly oversized functions would spill into temporary tents on the South Lawn or make creative use of overflow space. That was not always ideal from a protocol or logistical standpoint.
When you are welcoming foreign delegations – when you are showcasing the United States – you want to do so in a building that reflects dignity, tradition, and functional adequacy.
It’s worth underscoring that, historically, the White House complex has always evolved, from its landscaping to its artwork, from furnishings to the very footprint of its wings.
The fact is: no president has simply accepted the building as frozen in time.
Each president and first lady have left their imprint.
Theodore Roosevelt oversaw the major 1902 renovation that reshaped the residence and its offices; his wife, Edith Roosevelt, famously objected to designs she deemed “ugly or inconvenient.”
Harry S. Truman, in a dramatic interior reconstruction during 1948–52, gutted the interior of the house, retaining only the façade while rebuilding it for modern needs.
Even recent administrations have adapted the space for function and symbolism, from the planting of the White House Kitchen Garden by first lady Michelle Obama to the conversion of a tennis court into a multipurpose sports court under President Barack Obama.
In short, the Executive Residence is living architecture.
It must serve the demands of state, symbol, ceremony, and the practicalities of hosting large gatherings. So, the step taken by President Trump to address the notable shortfall in event space does strike me as a needed and pragmatic one.
From my experience in protocol, I can affirm how useful a larger, integrated indoor venue on the White House grounds would be.
It would simplify logistics, improve guest experience, eliminate reliance on external tents—which sometimes feel awkward for high-level delegations — and allow for more ambitious bilateral and multilateral functions at the “People’s House.”
Critics have dismissed the idea of a “ballroom” for state functions and ceremonies. But in my view, such a space need not be defined by that label.
Not every event has to be a ball.
This could and should be a multiuse, welcoming venue for diplomacy, dialogue, and policy.
Beyond its ceremonial value, I can envision a series of substantive gatherings, Republicans and Democrats sitting down together with leading policy figures to discuss everything from improving public health to lowering the cost of care.
A well-designed, nonpartisan convening space on the White House grounds could send a powerful signal: that Americans can still come together, outside the glare of the voting chamber, to solve common challenges.
It’s also worth noting that presidents have always had access to sites like Camp David and other venues for private meetings and treaty signings. Yet the symbolism of convening important gatherings at the White House itself remains unmatched.
A purpose-built, multiuse space could meet that need while honoring the character and scale of the historic estate.
Equally important, the proposed funding structure, through U.S.-based corporations and private partners rather than taxpayers, reflects a thoughtful approach to stewardship.
If the design and construction can proceed without public expense, that is a model of civic partnership worth emulating.
That said, and as someone with a deep respect for the history, symbolism, craftsmanship, and modest scale of the White House, I believe caution is warranted.
When renovations change the character of historic buildings too dramatically, they risk eroding the intangible qualities of place that foreign dignitaries note: elegance, proportion, legacy.
A balance must be struck between functional modernization and respect for centuries of architectural precedent.
In the past, presidents and first ladies have privately lamented the building’s limitations. Edith Roosevelt, upon arriving in 1902, described the White House as “like living over the store,” a recognition of how the residence and offices had become cramped and mixed.
Her frustrations spurred the renovation that modernized the house for a new century.
The lesson is that adjustments are normal and often necessary, but the guiding aim should always be to preserve dignity and avoid undue ostentation.
In that spirit, I welcome the initiative by President Trump to expand the White House’s capacity for events, and to do so with a forward-looking view.
I hope that the execution reflects the best traditions of the Office: architectural restraint, historical continuity, respect for the many presidents and first ladies who preceded him, and a facility worthy of hosting the world, and reflecting America at its best.
Nancy G. Brinker is the founder of The Promise Fund and Susan G. Komen, and served as U.S. Ambassador to Hungary and Chief of Protocol of the United States. To read more of her reports — Click Here Now.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
