Architect James McCrery II resigned from the design of President Donald Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom in October 2025 after repeatedly warning that the plans violated building safety codes. Trump reportedly dismissed these fire-safety and emergency exit concerns, telling the architect, I am the code
.
The conflict centered on a series of preliminary designs for a massive event space in the White House East Wing. According to reporting by The Washington Post, McCrery, who was appointed lead architect in July 2025, raised alarms about inadequate emergency exits and fire safety measures. He specifically warned that there was little in the design
to stop a kitchen fire from spreading rapidly into the ballroom above.
Trump’s response to these warnings was a rejection of the premise that such regulations applied to the project. Two people familiar with the discussions told The Post that the president argued building codes did not apply to White House construction, stating simply, I am the code
.
Sharpie Markups and the 1,300-Guest Expansion
Documents reviewed by The Washington Post reveal that Trump took a deeply hands-on approach to the architecture, using his signature black Sharpie to annotate preliminary drawings. These markings were not merely aesthetic; they fundamentally altered the building’s footprint and utility. Trump scratched out proposed service corridors and stairs while expanding the room’s size to accommodate more than 1,300 guests.
The president’s modifications created a cascade of design challenges. Beyond the fire-safety risks, the expansion led to a critical shortage of facilities. In one early design, the women’s bathroom reportedly contained only seven stalls for a crowd of over a thousand people.
Trump’s notes also reflected his preference for ornate, classical styles. One Sharpie note written over an image of a White House colonnade instructed McCrery to use Corinthian columns
. Another note mocked the architect’s hesitation regarding the room’s scale, asking, James. And you think this is big enough
.
The Executive Residence Regulatory Loophole
The friction between the architect and the president is underscored by an unusual administrative arrangement. Typically, major White House construction is managed by the General Services Administration or the National Park Service, both of which must follow national safety standards to the maximum extent feasible
.
However, this project is being routed through the Executive Residence, a small office that is not a federal agency. This unusual regulatory arrangement effectively exempts the project from federal laws requiring compliance with national safety standards. Because the District of Columbia has no jurisdiction over federal property, the project exists in a regulatory gray area where the president’s preferences can override standard building codes.
Internal records highlight that safety remained a point of contention long after McCrery’s departure on October 20, 2025. Meeting notes from September 30, 2025, explicitly listed Life safety — big concern
. Later notes from November 6 stated that life safety needs POTUS buy in
.
Supreme Court Ruling and Legal Stakes
The ballroom has faced significant legal opposition from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argued that the demolition of part of the East Wing violated federal law because it lacked congressional approval. While the Supreme Court recently cleared Trump to continue construction, the ruling was not unanimous.
Chief Justice Roberts argued that the project infringed upon the legislature’s power of the purse, noting that a small appropriation for ordinary maintenance does not authorize the use of hundreds of millions of dollars in private donations to raze a historic wing of the White House.
He has shared AI visions for the site that include a drone port atop the ballroom, which would feature gun-toting troops and missile-bearing unmanned aerial vehicles.
Conflicting Accounts of the Departure
The White House has strongly denied that safety disputes led to the architect’s resignation. An official described the claim as factually false and totally inaccurate
, asserting that life safety issues have been addressed and resolved continuously. The administration characterized McCrery as a valued member of the initial design team
and stated the project simply moved in a different direction for its second phase.
McCrery himself has remained diplomatic in public. In a statement to The Washington Post, he said he was truly grateful
to have worked on the project and noted that he stepped aside
after completing the earliest designs. He was replaced by the firm Shalom Baranes Associates.
While the White House insists the current design meets national fire and safety standards, internal records do not explicitly confirm whether every specific deficiency identified by McCrery and contractors has been resolved. The central question remains whether the “POTUS buy-in” requested in November 2025 resulted in the implementation of the safety features the original architect deemed essential.