Fury. Resignation. A few cheers. That was the reaction when I asked readers what they thought of President Donald Trump’s demolition of the White House East Wing to make way for a massive ballroom.

I tried to put Trump’s move into context, linking to a story by a late colleague about President Harry Truman’s gutting of the entire White House exterior to rebuild it. I noted that many presidents have left their mark on the White House.

But more than 300 of the 3,400-plus people who subscribe to text messages I send out each weekday morning see what Trump is doing as something different. Four themes emerged: moral outrage and symbolism, respect for history and process, questions about legality and funding, and a small chorus of support viewing the project as progress.

“He’s tearing down democracy:” outrage and symbolism

The dominant tone among readers was outrage. Many saw the demolition not just as physical destruction, but as a metaphor for what they view as Trump’s larger disregard for law, history, and democracy itself.

“This is the literal demonstration of the destruction of our democracy,” one wrote. Another said simply, “It’s symbolic of Trump attempting to destroy our beloved country.”

Dozens used the word metaphor to describe the act. “He is tearing down history the same way he is attempting to tear down democracy,” one texter wrote. Another described Trump as “a wrecker in chief,” saying, “The serfs are starving and the king is building a ballroom. What do you think?”

Some readers connected the demolition to broader fears of authoritarianism. “This is the People’s House, not Trump’s house,” one said. “What’s happening is another sign of growing authoritarianism.” Others worried that “he plans on living out his life in the White House and passing the presidency to his children. A succession of the throne, as it were.”

One reader who had toured the White House years earlier said seeing photos of the razed wing made them physically ill. “I remember the awe and pride I felt as a ten-year-old touring that wing. Now that’s a concrete Mar-a-Lago 2.0. The first was ugly enough. Shame on us for letting this happen.”

“It’s our house, not his:” history, preservation, and process

Many readers seized upon my comparison to Truman’s reconstruction, but nearly all of them saw a crucial distinction. Truman rebuilt a crumbling structure “to save the White House, which was falling apart,” one wrote, “and he did it with congressional approval and oversight.”

“This is not like Truman,” another said. “Truman salvaged a building falling down. Trump, the real estate developer, tore down the East Wing. His increasing tacky gold décor is everywhere ‘the king’ sits.”

Readers steeped in history or architecture lamented the loss of proportion and heritage. “The concern among architects I’ve heard is that the size of the ballroom will dwarf the White House,” one person wrote. “The proportions will be completely off.” Another said, “Temporary residents in the White House should not be changing the architecture without oversight. Our Congress unfortunately are not men and women of courage.”

Others spoke with personal experience. One recalled being invited to White House receptions during the George W. Bush years and said, “To know this is all being torn down, especially after being told it would not be touched, is devastating.” Another remembered taking students through the East Wing: “It was an amazing feeling being in that beautiful building and soaking up all the history there. Sadly the man who inhabits that building now has no respect for it or our country.”

“Where’s the oversight?”

A third major theme was alarm about legality and transparency. Readers repeatedly asked whether any laws or preservation procedures were followed, and whether the funding — reportedly “private” — might conceal self-dealing or favors to donors.

“Did the other presidents who altered the building ask for permission or advice or consultations?” one reader asked. “Because that would make a difference.” Another wrote, “There are procedures that should be followed when such a drastic change is undertaken. He broke the law again! He destroyed federal property.”

Several questioned where Congress and preservation authorities were. “There should be rules,” one said. “Do it with intention and respect. My thoughts go back to Jackie Kennedy and the thoughtful way changes were made. He is a madman.” Another added, “Many say the demolition violates federal preservation law because no agency approval or budget authorization was issued. Just another scam against our democracy so Trump can do whatever he pleases.”

Others zeroed in on timing and money, even with private donors – mainly big companies –paying for the work: “It’s a bad look to build a grand ballroom while the government is closed, SNAP benefits are set to run out, and health insurance costs are about to spike. It’s very ‘let them eat cake.’” Another said, “It’s not so much the demolition and rebuilding as it is doing it while asking citizens to cut back or do without needed benefits. It’s just another example of the party of ‘I’ve got mine.’”

Even some who favored renovation questioned Trump’s motives. “My issue is with the lack of transparency,” one self-identified Democrat said. “We all know that Trump is taking bribes from tech, crypto, foreign investors and governments with no accountability. This project is not a gift from Trump to our nation — it’s just another bribe.”

“Every president leaves a mark”: defenders and skeptics of outrage

A small minority of readers defended Trump’s right to modify the White House, framing the reaction as partisan hysteria.

“Much ado about nothing,” one wrote. “Historically, most presidents have put their seal on the White House.” Another said, “Like any house, sometimes you need to renovate.”

A few cited earlier projects: “Teddy Roosevelt built the West Wing. Taft added the Oval Office. FDR expanded again. Truman gutted it. Obama swapped the tennis court for a basketball court. And now Trump is building a ballroom — carrying on the tradition of modernizing America’s most iconic home.”

Some emphasized that taxpayer dollars weren’t used. “It’s not taxpayer funded, so no one should complain,” one wrote. Another added, “Zero taxpayer dollars and he can’t take it with him — I think it’s great.”

Yet even among sympathizers, there were notes of unease. “Of course the décor will be tacky, but the next guy can fix that,” one person joked. Another said, “If it’s done correctly, I don’t have a problem with it. The news will blow over in a couple weeks and that will be it until the grand unveiling.”

A shared sense of loss

For most respondents, though, the anger and sorrow ran deep. Many who had toured the East Wing described a personal sense of violation — as if something sacred had been defaced.

“The People’s House is being turned into a palace for a king,” one wrote. “When I toured that wing, I was sure I’d see LBJ come around the corner or be looking at the roses in the Rose Garden Mrs. Kennedy started. Now that’s all gone.”

Another reader, recalling how the building once symbolized unity, said: “I love history and believe things should be renovated, not torn down and remade into something garish. He has gutted the soul of America.”

The messages — some angry, some mournful, a few defiant — reveal not just opinions about a building but about the state of the nation itself. As one texter summed it up:

“It’s a building, yes — a national symbol of our democracy. But what’s being torn down now isn’t just walls. It’s the idea that this house belongs to all of us.”

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.