“I am the code” has become the central phrase in a new report about a dispute between President Donald Trump and the original architect of the White House ballroom, as previously undisclosed documents and interviews shed light on concerns about fire safety, emergency exits and building-code compliance.
The Washington Post reported on September 23, 2026, that architect James McCrery II clashed with Trump during the early design phase of the planned White House ballroom. Two people familiar with the discussions told the newspaper that McCrery repeatedly raised concerns about safety features in preliminary plans before stepping away from the project in October 2025. Documents reviewed by the Post also showed that White House officials continued discussing “life safety” concerns after McCrery’s departure.
The White House disputes any suggestion that McCrery left because of code-related disagreements. A White House spokesman said safety compliance has been a priority throughout the project and that aesthetics have not taken precedence over fire and life-safety standards. The administration also said the current design team has addressed safety issues as the project has developed.
The new reporting therefore centers on two competing accounts: the concerns documented during the project’s early design process and the administration’s assertion that those concerns have since been resolved.
What happened between Trump and architect James McCrery?
James McCrery II was the first architect selected to work on the aboveground design of the White House ballroom project. His firm began developing drawings in 2025, and McCrery worked directly with Trump as the president became increasingly involved in the project’s architectural details.
According to the Post’s reporting, Trump was deeply involved in the design process. The newspaper reviewed early drawings and other materials containing handwritten annotations that appeared to have been made by Trump.
Those markings included changes to the proposed ballroom footprint, alterations involving service corridors and stairs, and preferences concerning architectural details. The documents illustrate how closely Trump participated in the project’s development during its earliest stages.
The relationship became more complicated as the proposed ballroom grew in scale and the design encountered functional and safety challenges.
McCrery’s concerns reportedly went beyond architectural style. The architect warned that an early version of the design did not provide sufficient emergency egress and fire-containment measures for the planned occupancy.
The Post also reported that the early plans had concerns involving restroom capacity and the ability to prevent a kitchen fire from spreading rapidly into the event space.
Why did fire safety become a major issue?
Fire and life-safety requirements are particularly important in a large assembly space because hundreds or potentially more than a thousand people could occupy the ballroom during major events.
The Post reported that McCrery told the White House the preliminary design did not meet fire-safety requirements concerning how guests could exit during an emergency.
The architect also raised concerns about alternative evacuation routes. According to documents reviewed by the newspaper, some of those routes were considered inadequate in the early plans.
Another concern involved fire containment. The preliminary design reportedly provided limited protection against a kitchen fire spreading rapidly into the ballroom above.
These concerns were not simply part of an architectural debate. A September 30, 2025 White House meeting included discussion of problem areas in the design, with official notes describing “Life safety” as a “big concern.”
The existence of those notes is significant because they show that life-safety issues were being discussed within the White House project team. However, the documents do not establish that the current ballroom design remains deficient.
The administration says the opposite. The White House stated that life-safety issues have been addressed continuously as the design has evolved.
What did Trump reportedly say about building codes?
The most striking allegation in the new report concerns Trump’s reported response when McCrery raised building-code concerns.
Two people familiar with the discussions told the Post that Trump rejected McCrery’s objections and said building codes did not apply to White House construction.
Trump reportedly responded with the phrase, “I am the code.”
The statement is attributed to people familiar with the private discussions rather than to a public recording released by the White House. The Post said its reporting was based on interviews and corroborating documents.
The White House did not confirm Trump’s reported statement. Instead, its response focused on rejecting the broader characterization that McCrery’s departure was connected to safety-code disagreements.
That distinction is important when assessing the current status of the story. The reported exchange is part of the Post’s investigation, while the administration’s official position is that safety requirements have been taken seriously throughout the project.
What happened to James McCrery?
McCrery stepped away from the ballroom project in October 2025, after completing what his later statement described as the earliest stages of the design.
The timing has drawn renewed attention because his departure occurred after the reported disagreements over the project’s size and safety-related design questions.
McCrery himself has not publicly confirmed that building-code disputes caused his departure.
In a statement issued through a spokesman in response to the Post’s questions, McCrery said Trump had entrusted him with the earliest stages of the ballroom design and that he was grateful for the opportunity. He described his departure as stepping aside after completing the initial designs so that another firm could take over.
That statement does not identify safety disagreements as the reason he left.
The White House likewise said McCrery’s departure was not associated with code issues.
Shalom Baranes Associates took over the design
After the project’s initial design phase, Shalom Baranes Associates became the principal architectural firm working on the next stage.
Federal design-review records confirm the transition. At a January 2026 Commission of Fine Arts meeting, architect Shalom Baranes presented the developing ballroom design and explained that his firm had joined the project in early November following schematic work by McCrery’s firm.
The new team did not simply discard the earlier work. Baranes said the project team continued developing one of the schemes created during McCrery’s earlier phase.
The January presentation described a ballroom of approximately 22,000 square feet intended to accommodate about 1,000 guests for a formal seated dinner. The larger above-ground portion of the addition was described as slightly more than 89,000 square feet, with additional functions below the ballroom.
The plans also incorporated specific life-safety features.
Baranes told the Commission of Fine Arts that a long terrace and stair on the west side of the ballroom were required as means of egress to meet life-safety regulations.
That detail provides important context for the latest reporting. While early designs raised concerns, subsequent versions explicitly included emergency-egress features as part of the architectural presentation.
What do official records show about the current ballroom design?
The federal design-review record shows that the ballroom project continued through formal architectural review during 2026.
The Commission of Fine Arts reviewed the proposal in January and February. In February, the commission approved the submission as a final design after reviewing the revised concept. Its official letter described the project as an addition replacing the East Wing and said the commission had concluded its review.
The commission’s January records provide additional details about the planned building.
The ballroom was described as approximately 110 by 200 feet, with ceilings around 40 feet high. The proposed design was intended to connect with the White House’s State Room level while incorporating additional support and service areas.
Federal environmental documentation also describes the project as an approximately 90,000-square-foot addition intended to provide a permanent event space within the White House grounds.
These records are separate from the newly reported dispute between Trump and McCrery. They show that the project subsequently progressed through government review and that the design team presented life-safety considerations as part of the evolving plans.
Did the safety concerns continue after McCrery left?
According to the Post’s latest investigation, yes, discussions about life safety continued after McCrery’s departure.
The newspaper reported that White House records from November 2025 included another reference to life-safety concerns. One set of notes reportedly stated that life safety required presidential approval.
However, the available records do not establish that those concerns remained unresolved in the final design.
The White House says the opposite. Its spokesman said the current architectural and consulting team is responsible for designing the project according to nationally recognized fire and safety codes. The administration also said that life-safety issues have been addressed and resolved continuously as the design has evolved.
Clark Construction, the project’s general contractor, also said it follows applicable building codes and life-safety requirements on its federal projects. The company has reportedly hired a private firm for third-party inspection work connected with the ballroom construction.
How are White House building rules different from ordinary construction?
The latest controversy also raises questions about which government entities oversee construction at the White House.
The Post reported that ordinary federal construction projects are generally subject to nationally recognized building-safety standards. Federal agencies typically incorporate those requirements into construction contracts and oversight procedures.
The ballroom project, however, has been routed through the White House Executive Residence rather than through the General Services Administration as a conventional federal construction project.
The General Services Administration has said it has no role in the ballroom project, while the National Park Service is involved in aspects of the property but is not running the construction.
The unusual administrative arrangement is one reason the building-code question has received renewed attention.
The distinction does not mean that the current ballroom is officially declared unsafe. Instead, it concerns how federal construction requirements and oversight mechanisms apply to a project managed through the White House.
What is the current status of the White House ballroom?
The ballroom project is continuing, and its design has moved considerably beyond the early concepts associated with McCrery’s firm.
Federal records show that the Commission of Fine Arts approved the final design in February 2026. The National Park Service also maintains environmental documentation for the East Wing modernization and State Ballroom project.
At the same time, the latest Post investigation reports that design refinements continued even after construction began.
The White House has acknowledged that refinements are continuing but said they primarily involve interiors. The administration maintains that safety requirements have been incorporated into the evolving design.
The current public record therefore does not establish that the ballroom is operating with unresolved fire-safety deficiencies. Construction is ongoing, and the White House says the present design complies with applicable safety requirements.
Why the phrase “I am the code” matters to the latest story
The phrase has attracted attention because it encapsulates the disagreement described by people familiar with the early design discussions.
For McCrery, the reported concerns involved conventional architectural responsibilities such as emergency egress, fire containment and occupant facilities. For Trump, the reported response reflected his position that White House construction was not subject to ordinary building-code requirements.
The administration’s current position is more specific: it says the project has prioritized life safety and that the current design team is addressing applicable fire and safety standards.
That leaves an important distinction between the reported events of 2025 and the project’s present design.
The latest reporting provides new information about what happened during the early design process. It does not by itself demonstrate that the current ballroom design has the same deficiencies that McCrery identified in preliminary plans.
As construction continues, the most relevant factual question is whether the final building satisfies the safety requirements applicable to its design, occupancy and construction.
Latest update on the ballroom safety dispute
As of September 23, 2026, the new reporting has brought renewed attention to a previously private dispute between Trump and McCrery. The reported disagreement involved emergency exits, fire protection, restroom capacity and other life-safety considerations in early ballroom plans.
McCrery has not publicly said that safety concerns caused him to leave the project. The White House explicitly denies that his departure was connected to code issues and says safety standards have remained a priority.
Meanwhile, the current design was developed under Shalom Baranes Associates and received final approval from the Commission of Fine Arts in February 2026. Official design materials show that the later plans incorporated dedicated means of egress and other life-safety considerations.
The newest evidence therefore adds detail to the project’s early history without establishing that the present ballroom is unsafe. The White House’s position remains that life-safety issues have been addressed as the design has evolved.
The debate over the White House ballroom now has a new layer, with the reported Trump-McCrery exchange putting early safety concerns under renewed scrutiny as construction continues. Stay tuned for verified updates as the project moves forward.