Donald Trump’s massive White House ballroom project is facing fresh scrutiny after new reporting revealed that its original architect repeatedly raised concerns about fire and building safety before leaving the job.
Architect James McCrery II, who was originally selected to design the White House ballroom, clashed with Trump over features he believed failed to meet building safety standards, according to The Washington Post. The newspaper reported that two people familiar with the discussions, along with documents it reviewed, described disagreements over emergency exits, fire containment and other life-safety concerns.
During one exchange, Trump reportedly rejected McCrery’s concerns by arguing that building codes did not apply to White House construction.
“I am the code,” Trump said, according to the Post’s sources.
The reported comment has quickly become the headline, but the underlying dispute involved specific questions about how hundreds of guests could safely move through the planned ballroom during an emergency.
McCrery reportedly believed the proposed design lacked adequate emergency exit routes. Another concern involved fire containment, including whether enough safeguards existed to prevent a kitchen fire from spreading rapidly into the ballroom.
Bathroom capacity was reportedly another issue. According to reporting on documents reviewed by the Post, one early version included only seven stalls in a women’s restroom despite plans to accommodate hundreds of guests.
Those concerns apparently reached beyond conversations between Trump and McCrery. Notes from a September 30, 2025 meeting discussing concerns raised by contractors reportedly included the warning, “Life safety — big concern.”
McCrery ultimately left the project in October 2025, only months after being announced as its lead architect.
The White House disputes the suggestion that his departure resulted from safety disagreements.
A White House official said safety-code compliance has remained a priority and that life-safety concerns “have been addressed and resolved continuously as the design has evolved.” The administration also said McCrery’s departure was unrelated to the reported code dispute and that officials decided to use another firm for the project’s next phase.
McCrery offered a measured account of his exit.
“President Trump entrusted me with the earliest stages of the new ballroom design,” McCrery said in a statement to the Post. “I am truly grateful for that honor and for the rich experience of working for him alongside all the highly talented and committed patriots at the Executive Mansion. Having completed the earliest designs, I stepped aside, and a new firm was engaged.”
The disagreement adds another chapter to a project that has changed considerably since the White House formally announced it in July 2025.
At the time, the administration described plans for a roughly 90,000-square-foot ballroom capable of seating approximately 650 people. The White House argued that the addition would solve a longstanding logistical problem because major events have often required temporary outdoor structures when existing rooms could not accommodate the guest list.
Trump initially selected McCrery Architects, a Washington-based firm known for classical architecture. Clark Construction was named to lead construction, while AECOM was selected to handle engineering.
The White House originally put the project’s cost at approximately $200 million before later descriptions pushed the price significantly higher. By September 2026, the project was widely described as costing about $400 million.
Its physical footprint also transformed the White House complex.
The East Wing, historically associated with the first lady’s offices and other White House functions, was demolished in October 2025 as construction moved forward. The new development is intended to include the ballroom along with reconstructed facilities connected to functions previously housed in the East Wing.
McCrery’s relationship with Trump had already drawn attention before the latest safety reporting. Previous reports described disagreements over the ballroom’s scale, with Trump pushing for a larger project while McCrery reportedly advocated a more restrained design that would not overwhelm the historic Executive Mansion.
By December 2025, Shalom Baranes Associates had replaced McCrery’s firm on the project.
What remains unclear is how much the ballroom’s later designs changed in response to the life-safety concerns McCrery reportedly identified. The Post reported that discussions about those issues continued for months after his departure and that records it reviewed did not establish whether every concern had been resolved in subsequent plans. Shalom Baranes Associates declined to comment to the newspaper.
The ballroom has also become part of a wider legal and political fight over Trump’s construction plans in Washington. The administration has increasingly tied the project to security needs, while opponents have challenged aspects of the project and questioned the administration’s authority to proceed without additional congressional involvement.
Through it all, construction has continued.
That leaves the latest reporting centered on a consequential question beyond the attention-grabbing “I am the code” quote: exactly how the final ballroom design addresses the emergency-exit, fire-containment, and other safety concerns that reportedly helped fuel one of the project’s earliest major internal disputes.
