The construction of a sprawling new ballroom at the White House has been halted by a federal appeals court, dealing a significant setback to President Donald Trump‘s ambitious renovation plans. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled on Friday that the project, which involves demolishing the historic East Wing, cannot proceed without congressional approval.
The decision comes after a lengthy legal battle initiated by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit organization chartered by Congress. The trust argued that the Trump administration overstepped its authority by initiating the project without proper authorization. The court’s ruling underscores the legal limitations on presidential authority regarding significant alterations to the White House.
The Legal Battle and Court Ruling
The three-judge panel issued a 2-1 ruling, with Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia in the majority and Judge Neomi Rao dissenting. The majority opinion emphasized that the construction of such a massive ballroom is a matter for Congress to decide, not the executive branch. “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 wrote in its 136-page ruling.
The court also noted that the White House is a national treasure and that any significant alterations must be subject to public scrutiny and congressional oversight. The ruling is a significant victory for preservationists and those concerned about the historic integrity of the White House. The court’s decision will be stayed for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme court.
The Trump Administration’s Response
President Trump swiftly responded to the ruling, calling it “horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful.” He vowed to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ballroom is a matter of national security. In a post on Truth Social, Trump stated that the ballroom includes essential security features such as bomb shelters, state-of-the-art medical facilities, and protective partitioning.
Trump also highlighted the potential security risks posed by halting the construction. “This unjust decision must be overturned by the Supreme Court in its entirety,” he wrote. The administration has maintained that the ballroom is crucial for the safety of White House staff, future presidents, and visiting dignitaries. The project, initially estimated to cost $200 million, has seen its price tag balloon to potentially $600 million, according to contractors’ invoices.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Victory
The National Trust for Historic Preservation celebrated the court’s decision, calling it a victory for the American people’s right to voice their opinions about historic places. Brent Leggs, the trust’s president and CEO, stated that the ruling reaffirms the importance of congressional oversight in matters affecting the White House. “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,” Leggs said.
The trust’s lawsuit, filed in December, sought to halt construction until the legally mandated review process was completed. The court’s ruling upholds the trust’s argument that only Congress can authorize such a significant alteration to the White House. The decision is part of a broader legal battle over Trump’s efforts to reshape Washington’s historic landscape, including proposals for a triumphal arch and changes to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
The legal fight has also revealed details about a mysterious bunker beneath the East Wing, which Trump described as a “big complex” built by the military. The administration has pointed to recent security threats, such as the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting, to justify the ballroom’s construction as a national security measure.
As the legal battle continues, the court’s ruling serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between presidential authority and the need for congressional oversight in matters affecting the nation’s historic landmarks.
