In an article published by ABC News on October 29, 2025, titled “White House fires members of commission that is to weigh in on Trump’s construction projects” and written by Hannah Demissie, Isabella Murray, Peter Charalambous, and Ivan Pereira, the authors report that the Trump White House has fired all six remaining members of the Commission of Fine Arts just weeks before the commission was expected to weigh in on two high-profile and highly controversial construction proposals: a $300 million ballroom on the White House grounds and a ceremonial arch near Arlington National Cemetery. According to the article, the White House plans to replace those commissioners—who were appointed by President Biden—with members more aligned with Trump’s “America First” agenda.
This may look like political housecleaning, but it’s something far more significant. This is a message about power—who holds it, who can question it, and how easily the symbolic guardrails of democracy can be dismantled under the guise of aesthetics.
The ballroom and the arch are not just projects. They are statements.
The article details the scale and symbolism of Trump’s vision: a grand ballroom replacing much of the East Wing and a towering arch styled after Paris’s Arc de Triomphe rising across from the Lincoln Memorial. Both projects are said to be funded by private donors. Neither has gone through a public review process. And now, any advisory body that might raise concerns about the design, symbolism, or public significance of these structures has been cleared away.
This is not just a matter of taste. This is architectural messaging. These projects function as physical declarations of identity, legacy, and dominance. They are meant to endure long after headlines fade.
What Trump is building isn’t just physical. It’s political permanence.
The Commission of Fine Arts, as the article notes, is an advisory body. It has no authority to block construction. Its mandate is to provide nonpartisan, expert advice to promote the dignity and aesthetic consistency of the nation’s capital. In other words, it exists to uphold tradition, professionalism, and public trust.
Removing the commissioners was not necessary to move the projects forward—but it was useful. It sends a clear message: even ceremonial feedback is too much friction when a leader is determined to design not just buildings, but the story that history will tell.
This is how institutional erasure happens. Not by dismantling agencies overnight, but by rendering them hollow—stripping them of people, purpose, and voice.
What happens when the only acceptable feedback is applause?
The original article notes that Will Scharf, Trump’s staff secretary and chair of the National Capital Planning Commission, has already expressed enthusiastic support for the ballroom project and dismissed criticism. The other agency with overlapping jurisdiction—the NCPC—is also led by Trump loyalists.
What we’re witnessing is not just the reshuffling of personnel. It’s the construction of a closed loop. A system in which every advisory panel becomes an echo chamber. Every check becomes a cheerleader. And the line between public office and personal ambition is not blurred—it’s gone.
Oversight is not the problem. It’s the point.
In moments like this, the instinct is to look away. To treat this as a niche issue or another sideshow in the endless culture war. But the deeper pattern demands attention.
Public architecture has always been about more than bricks and mortar. It is about what we honor, what we elevate, and what we choose to preserve. When the oversight of that symbolism is removed without cause—especially in the service of vanity projects—the warning should be clear.
The institutions we ignore are often the first ones to fall.
Final thoughts: The design is intentional, and so is the silence around it.
Trump is not hiding these moves. The firings were confirmed on the record. The projects are public. The intent is visible.
What remains unclear is whether the public, the press, and the political class will treat these moves as legitimate policy or as what they truly are—a quiet rewriting of the civic story we tell ourselves through the built environment.
Because the danger isn’t just in what gets built. It’s in what gets erased along the way.
Let me know if you’d like this adapted for social, condensed into a thread, or repurposed for a Sunday newsletter feature.
