The D.C. Circuit Court blocked the construction of a $400 million90,000-square-foot ballroom at the White House on appeal, ruling that President Donald Trump could not proceed without congressional approval in a decision issued by the court in Washington, D.C.
The ruling mattered because it addressed the scope of executive authority over substantial alterations to the Executive Residence and paused a project that supporters framed as a security and modernization effort while preservationists called for statutory review and congressional oversight.
Who decided and what the court held
A three-judge panel of the Circuit Court issued a 2-1 decision with Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia in the majority and Judge Neomi Rao dissenting. The majority held that the President lacked unilateral authority to construct the large ballroom and that the question of such an addition was for Congress to decide. The opinion stated, “Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help.” The court permitted a 14-day stay to allow the administration to seek review in the Supreme Court.
Administration response and immediate appeals
The White House said it would appeal and the President publicly characterized the ruling as “horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful.” The administration defended the project as addressing security needs and cited what it described as built-in protective features. The President also posted that “This unjust decision must be overturned by the Supreme Court in its entirety.” The stay gives the administration two weeks to pursue emergency relief at the nation’s highest court while above-ground construction remained enjoined.
Litigation, preservationists and disputed facts
The lawsuit was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation which argued that the planned demolition of the historic East Wing and replacement with a sprawling ballroom required statutory authorization and public review. Brent Leggs President and CEO of the National Trust, said, “This is a great day for our country and for the American people’s right to voice their opinions about the historic places they cherish, including the White House.” The Trust emphasized that the White House is held in trust for the American people and that only Congress can permit so substantial an alteration.
Dissenting view and security arguments
Judge Neomi Rao dissented, arguing that the National Trust lacked standing to sue and that the President had authority to make improvements to the Executive Residence. Judge Rao also warned that halting the project could create security risks from an open construction site at the President’s residence and criticized the lower-court analysis for elevating aesthetics over security concerns.
The litigation exposed competing factual claims about cost and urgency: while the ruling referenced a project budget of $400 million for a 90,000-square-foot facility, other filings and invoices introduced in the legal record showed earlier estimates and contractor statements suggesting a range of figures for the undertaking. The case record also included references to security features and to a previously undisclosed bunker beneath the East Wing that the administration described in its defense.
Ultimo aggiornamento: 7 agosto 2026. The case remains in active litigation with the administration preparing an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court and preservationists standing by their claims that Congress must authorize major changes to the White House. The National Trust for Historic Preservation and the executive branch are the principal parties identified in the dispute over the future of the East Wing and the proposed ballroom.
