The facts are these: On November 2, 1800, President John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail that the new “President’s house” was barely “habitable.” He concluded with a prayer that Heaven would “bestow the best of Blessings on this House and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise Men ever rule under this roof.”

Here is what actually happened. Adams’ prayer proved aspirational rather than predictive. The occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have indeed been a mixed bag of wisdom and foolishness, honesty and dishonesty. More importantly for our purposes today, virtually none of them lived under the same roof Adams did. The structure we call the White House has been burned, rebuilt, gutted, demolished, and reconstructed repeatedly over 225 years. The only original elements remaining are some of the sandstone exterior walls.

Let that sink in. The current White House interior is younger than Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Harry Truman oversaw a near-complete reconstruction 73 years ago. Every renovation has sparked controversy. Every addition to the so-called “People’s House” has been denounced by critics, including features we now consider iconic.

Which brings us to the current manufactured outrage over President Trump’s Big Beautiful Ballroom. The hysteria is predictable, tiresome, and historically illiterate. There is nothing unprecedented about this project. In fact, it would be truly unprecedented if Trump, a man world-famous for restoring historic buildings, did not make improvements to the White House.

Consider the qualifications. Trump has spent decades successfully renovating landmark properties. He is doing this project for the right reasons: improving the property for future administrations and state functions. He is doing it the right way: without taxpayer funding. And he is following a long tradition of presidential modifications to the executive mansion.

The historical record is unambiguous. The White House has endured far greater insults to its structural integrity and cultural dignity than anything Trump proposes.

James Hoban won the original design contest in 1793. The building has been a work in progress ever since. Adams barely had time to settle in before the structure began its long history of modifications, destructions, and reconstructions. The whitewashed exterior that gave the building its nickname was added simply to protect porous sandstone from Maryland’s humid climate.

Every president who has cared about the building’s function and appearance has made changes. Thomas Jefferson added colonnades. The British burned the entire structure in 1814, requiring complete reconstruction. Theodore Roosevelt undertook major renovations and added the West Wing. Calvin Coolidge added the third floor. Franklin Roosevelt built the East Wing. Truman’s reconstruction was so extensive that only the exterior walls remained.

The pattern is clear. Presidents modify the White House to meet contemporary needs while respecting its historical significance. This is normal. This is appropriate. This is precedented.

Yet the same critics who remained silent during previous renovations suddenly discover grave concerns about “democracy” and “tradition” when Trump proposes a ballroom. The logic fails immediately. How does adding event space threaten democracy? How does privately funded construction violate tradition when publicly funded renovations did not?

The answer is simple: This is not about architecture or history. This is about Trump. The critics would oppose Trump if he proposed painting a bathroom. They opposed his policy decisions, his personnel choices, and his very presence in office. Now they oppose his building plans.

But facts do not care about their feelings. The White House belongs to the American people, and improving it for state functions serves the national interest. Trump’s qualifications are beyond dispute. His funding method eliminates taxpayer concerns. His respect for the building’s history is evident in his approach.

The hysterics should consult the historical record before manufacturing their next controversy. The White House has survived far worse than a ballroom addition.

Related: Lara Trump Dismisses Swalwell’s Pledge to Demolish White House Ballroom as Ridiculous Posturing