History is being rewritten on the White House grounds, where a new formal ballroom is rising in place of the East Wing. The project has become a political lightning rod, as images of its construction reignite debate over President Donald Trump’s imprint on the nation’s most iconic address.

While the White House has hosted countless ceremonial events, it has never had a dedicated ballroom. The new structure will fill that void, replacing the historic East Wing with a space designed instead to host large-scale gatherings.

FROM THE GILDED OVAL OFFICE TO A NEW MONUMENT: A LOOK AT TRUMP’S RENOVATION PROJECTS

The ballroom is estimated to cost $250 million and will be financed jointly by Trump and private donors.

While the White House has pledged to release details on the individuals and corporations funding the ballroom’s construction, a comprehensive breakdown of contributions has not yet been made public.

Here’s a look at the construction process so far:

SPRAWLING NEW $250M WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM TO BE PAID FOR BY TRUMP AND DONORS

During a July 31 briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt detailed the administration’s plans to construct a 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the White House grounds.

Leavitt said the new ballroom will accommodate approximately 650 seated guests and will stay true to the classical design of the White House.

A McCrery Architects rendering provided by the White House of the exterior of the new ballroom. (White House)

“The White House is currently unable to host major functions honoring world leaders in other countries without having to install a large and unsightly tent approximately 100 yards away from the main building’s entrance,” Leavitt said on July 31.

She added that the new ballroom will be “a much-needed and exquisite addition.”

Barbara Boxer decided she was done. Entering her 70s, fresh off reelection to the U.S. Senate, she determined her fourth term would be her last.

“I just felt it was time,” Boxer said. “I wanted to do other things.”

Besides, she knew the Democratic bench was amply stocked with many bright prospects, including California’s then-attorney general, Kamala Harris, who succeeded Boxer in Washington en route to her selection as Joe Biden’s vice president.

When Boxer retired in 2017, after serving 24 years in the Senate, she walked away from one of the most powerful and privileged positions in American politics, a job many have clung to until their last, rattling breath.

(Boxer tried to gently nudge her fellow Democrat and former Senate colleague, Dianne Feinstein, whose mental and physical decline were widely chronicled during her final, difficult years in office. Ignoring calls to step aside, Feinstein died at age 90, hours after voting on a procedural matter on the Senate floor.)

Now an effort is underway among Democrats, from Hawaii to Massachusetts, to force other senior lawmakers to yield, as Boxer did, to a new and younger generation of leaders. The movement is driven by the usual roiling ambition, along with revulsion at Donald Trump and the existential angst that visits a political party every time it loses a dispiriting election like the one Democrats faced in 2024.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has become the highest profile target.

Last week, she drew a second significant challenger to her reelection, state Sen. Scott Wiener, who jumped into the contest alongside tech millionaire Saikat Chakrabarti, who’s been campaigning against the incumbent for the better part of a year.

Pelosi — who is 85 and hasn’t faced a serious election fight in San Francisco since Ronald Reagan was in the White House — is expected to announce sometime after California’s Nov. 4 special election whether she’ll run again in 2026.

Boxer, who turns 85 next month, offered no counsel to Pelosi, though she pushed back against the notion that age necessarily equates with infirmity, or political obsolescence. She pointed to Ted Kennedy and John McCain, two of the senators she served with, who remained vital and influential in Congress well into their 70s.

On the other hand, Boxer said, “Some people don’t deserve to be there for five minutes, let alone five years … They’re 50. Does that make it good? No. There are people who are old and out of ideas at 60.”

There is, Boxer said, “no one-size-fits-all” measure of when a lawmaker has passed his or her expiration date. Better, she suggested, for voters to look at what’s motivating someone to stay in office. Are they driven by purpose — and still capable of doing the job — “or is it a personal ego thing or psychological thing?”

“My last six years were my most prolific,” said Boxer, who opposes both term limits and a mandatory retirement age for members of Congress. “And if they’d said 65 and out, I wouldn’t have been there.”

Art Agnos didn’t choose to leave office.

He was 53 — in the blush of youth, compared to some of today’s Democratic elders — when he lost his reelection bid after a single term as San Francisco mayor.

“I was in the middle of my prime, which is why I ran for reelection,” he said. “And, frankly,” he added with a laugh, “I still feel like I’m in my prime at 87.”

A friend and longtime Pelosi ally, Agnos bristled at the ageism he sees aimed at lawmakers of a certain vintage. Why, he asked, is that acceptable in politics when it’s deplored in just about every other field of endeavor?

“What profession do we say we want bright young people who have never done this before to take over because they’re bright, young and say the right things?” Agnos asked rhetorically. “Would you go and say, ‘Let me find a brain surgeon who’s never done this before, but he’s bright and young and has great promise.’ We don’t do that. Do we?

“Give me somebody who’s got experience, “ Agnos said, “who’s been through this and knows how to handle a crisis, or a particular issue.”

Pete Wilson also left office sooner than he would have like, but that’s because term limits pushed him out after eight years as California governor. (Before that, he served eight years in the Senate and 11 as San Diego mayor.)

“I thought that I had done a good job … and a number of people said, ‘Gee, it’s a pity that you can’t run for a third term,’ ” Wilson said as he headed to New Haven, Conn., for his college reunion, Yale class of ’55. “As a matter of fact, I agreed with them.”

Still, unlike Boxer, Wilson supports term limits, as a way to infuse fresh blood into the political system and prevent too many over-the-hill incumbents from heedlessly overstaying their time in office.

Not that he’s blind to the impetus to hang on. The power. The perks. And, perhaps above all, the desire to get things done.

At age 92, Wilson maintains an active law practice in Century City and didn’t hesitate — “Yes!” he exclaimed — when asked if he considered himself capable of serving today as governor, even as he wends his way through a tenth decade on Earth.

His wife, Gayle, could be heard chuckling in the background.

“She’s laughing,” Wilson said dryly, “because she knows she’s not in any danger of my doing so.”

Will President Trump’s East Wing ballroom hold 650 people, or 999, as Mr. Trump said this week? Or maybe it will hold 1,350 people, according to a drawing Mr. Trump held up in the Oval Office this week.

The East Wing was demolished this week, but the ballroom design is still in flux, even though construction was slated to begin in September. The project is supposed to be completed before the end of Mr. Trump’s term at a cost of $300 million — $100 million more than the previous estimate.

The scope and size of the undertaking was always subject to change as work continued, according to a White House official. Here’s a look at what we know about the plans Mr. Trump has floated to remodel the torn-down East Wing:

In addition to a floor plan that suggests more seating in the ballroom than Mr. Trump had advertised, the number of west- and south-facing arched windows are different between the plans.

Similarly, there are six columns on the northeast portico in the White House website drawings, and eight columns in the renderings Mr. Trump showed this month. The portico would replace the previous entrance to the East Wing that millions of Americans have walked through for public tours of the White House.

The plans Mr. Trump has shown thus far indicate that there will be stairs from the South Lawn leading to the East Wing ballroom. But they show a difference in design: two smaller staircases or one larger one.

McCrery Architects, the firm hired for the project, did not respond to a request for comment.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, defended Mr. Trump’s decision to tear down the East Wing on Thursday, acknowledging that his initial plans had changed and arguing that he was not the first president to remodel the White House.

Architects and historians say that it is not unusual for designs to change during a project like this, but that Mr. Trump has not followed the typical process for White House renovations, which normally involve reviews by organizations like the National Capital Planning Commission.

And the various plans Mr. Trump has shared have suggested a hurried process. Along with the differences in the drawings, the model he displayed on Wednesday appeared to have some mistakes, like a staircase leading up from the South Lawn to no clear landing.