WASHINGTON — The National Capital Planning Commission on Thursday delayed its final vote on President Donald Trump’s planned $400 million White House ballroom amid a deluge of negative comments from the public.

The board, which is led by Trump allies, had been expected to vote to approve the project Thursday. But Stephen Staudigl, a spokesperson for the panel, said in a statement that the timing would be pushed back “given the large amount of public input on the project.”

About 32,000 comments from across the country have poured into the commission, which reviews the impact of development projects on the capital’s urban landscape, and a New York Times analysis found that they were overwhelmingly critical. Throughout the afternoon Thursday, members of the panel listened to hours of public testimony about the plan, much of it negative.

David Scott Parker, an architect with more than three decades of experience, expressed “grave concerns” about the plans for the 90,000-square-foot ballroom, particularly about the size of the proposed building and how it would dwarf the Executive Mansion of the White House.

“The volume is exaggerated,” Parker said. “It is nearly three times the original White House, in violation of classical architecture principles mandating balance.”

Aileen Mitchell, who worked in the White House in the East Wing under the administration of President George H.W. Bush, said Trump’s sudden demolition of the East Wing to make way for the ballroom risked “erasing the institutional memory of staff and public servants who have worked there for decades to welcome visitors and preserve the traditions of the presidency.”

“I hope that everyone will respect the White House as this historic institution and entrust it to its care, rather than dramatically alter and redesign it in someone else’s image,” she said.

The vote is now expected at the commission’s meeting on April 2. Will Scharf, the chair of the commission, said that pushing back the vote had been his plan for “quite some time.”

“Part of the reason we scheduled things that way was because we anticipated public comment on this project, and that’s totally normal and proper,” he said.

Those familiar with D.C. projects say the volume of responses — and their nearly uniform negativity — is highly unusual. The Times’ analysis, which used an artificial intelligence model to classify each comment’s view, found that more than 98% of the total comments were negative. Only around 1% of the comments supported the project.

The public comments are not a scientific poll and do not necessarily reflect the views of Americans more broadly. Still, they underscore how Trump’s demolition of the East Wing and remaking of the White House in his own style have struck a nerve with Americans.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the comments were part of an organized campaign by people who disdain Trump.

“These nasty comments are clearly stemming from an organized campaign of Trump-deranged liberals who clearly have no style or taste,” she said in a statement. “It’s a shame that some people in this country are so debilitated with Trump derangement syndrome, they can’t even recognize or respect beauty when they see it. President Trump’s ballroom will be extraordinary, at no expense to taxpayers, for generations to come.”

The president has taken steps to eliminate any resistance from within his administration to the plans, filling the boards and commissions meant to oversee the project with people who work for him.

Trump installed Scharf, his former personal lawyer, as the chair of National Capital Planning Commission, along with other appointees. Scharf also serves as assistant to the president and the White House staff secretary. The D.C. government is also represented on the panel.

Before taking public testimony, board members on Thursday discussed the merits of the project and asked questions of its architect, Shalom Baranes.

Phil Mendelson, the Democratic chair of the D.C. Council, objected to the height of the ballroom, which would be as tall as the Executive Mansion and taller than the West Wing.

“Why can’t the height be reduced, either by lowering the building or not having the ceiling as high?” he asked.

Baranes acknowledged that the ballroom’s design did produce an unbalanced White House campus, but argued the campus has frequently lacked balance in its history.

“I’m pointing out here that historically, as we look at the White House, the imbalance between the two sides existed over many, many decades at different times in history,” Baranes argued.

One member of the public who testified took Scharf to task over his role on the panel.

Jon Golinger, of the nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, argued that Trump’s appointees had taken their seats on the panel illegally because, he said, they lacked experience in city or regional planning as the law requires.

“The fix is in for this project and this vote,” Golinger said.

Scharf took offense to those comments, and argued that he was qualified for the job, pointing to his experience working as a lawyer and in the Missouri governor’s office.

“If you want to sue me, I’ll see you in court,” Scharf said.

Should the commission approve Trump’s plans, the final obstacle to the ballroom would be the courts, where a federal judge has urged the administration to go through a public review process before proceeding with construction.

—

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

By Luke Broadwater/Doug Mills
c. 2026 The New York Times Company