WASHINGTON – A recent ruling from a federal appeals court has set the stage for a significant reconsideration regarding the construction of President Donald Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom. This decision revolves around the potential national security implications tied to halting the ongoing construction project.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its ruling on a Saturday, indicating that the three-judge panel lacked sufficient information to determine how much of the ballroom project can be paused without compromising the safety of the president, his family, or White House staff.
This case has returned to U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who previously ruled on March 31 that construction work must not proceed without Congressional approval. However, he suspended enforcement of that order for 14 days, a pause that the appeals court has since extended by an additional three days, allowing the Trump administration the opportunity to seek a review from the Supreme Court.
The appeals panel has instructed Judge Leon to clarify whether his injunction interferes with the administration’s security plans. Government lawyers have argued that the ballroom project includes critical security features designed to mitigate various threats, including drones, ballistic missiles, and biohazards. They contend that halting construction would jeopardize the safety of the President and others residing and working in the White House.
In his initial ruling, Judge Leon suggested that the preservationist group behind the legal challenge is likely to succeed, emphasizing that Trump lacks the authority to build the ballroom without Congressional approval. He did, however, exempt any construction deemed necessary for the safety and security of the White House, asserting that his review of government-submitted materials indicated a halt would not threaten national security.
The Trump administration’s appeal highlighted the construction’s extensive security measures, which reportedly include bomb shelters, military installations, and a medical facility beneath the ballroom. The appeals court noted that much of the government’s concerns relate primarily to this underground security work, which the White House argued could be conducted independently from the ballroom’s construction.
Nevertheless, the court pointed out that the White House now seems to view these security upgrades as “inseparable” from the ballroom project as a whole. This raises questions about the necessity of advancing certain aspects of the ballroom for the overall safety and security of the upgrades.
Carol Quillen, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, expressed the organization’s commitment to honoring the historic significance of the White House. Quillen stated that they await further clarification from the district court and are dedicated to ensuring broad consultation, including public input, to yield a better outcome.
The lawsuit, initiated in December, followed the demolition of the East Wing to accommodate the ballroom, which Trump claims will host up to 999 guests. The administration indicated that above-ground construction was set to commence in April.
Judge Leon reiterated his belief that the lawsuit is likely to succeed, stressing that no statute grants the President the authority he claims to have. He remarked, “The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!”
Following Leon’s ruling, the ballroom project secured final approval from a key agency, which had been filled with Trump’s allies. Another oversight entity, also composed of Trump loyalists, had earlier approved the initiative. Despite this, the President proceeded with the most significant structural change to the White House in over 70 years prior to consulting the necessary commissions.
The President has claimed that the project is financed through private donations, although it has been reported that public funds are being allocated for the construction of underground bunkers and security enhancements.
The three-judge panel comprised Patricia Millett, Neomi Rao, and Bradley Garcia. Millett was nominated by President Barack Obama, while Rao was nominated by Trump, and Garcia was nominated by President Joe Biden. Rao voiced a dissenting opinion, referencing a statute that permits the President to undertake improvements to the White House. She argued that the government presented credible evidence of ongoing security vulnerabilities at the White House that would be exacerbated by halting construction, suggesting that these concerns outweigh the aesthetic harm claimed in the lawsuit.
—-
Associated Press writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.
