Appeals Court Orders Trump Administration To Stop $400 Million White House Ballroom Without Congress Approval

Ballroom halted by court

A federal appeals court ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to stop construction of a $400 million White House ballroom because the project lacks congressional approval, dealing a major setback in a case testing his presidential authority.

The ruling came from the Washington-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 decision, and it upheld a preliminary injunction won by the National Trust for Historic Preservation after the administration tore down the East Wing and began building a 90,000-square-foot ballroom without seeking authorization from Congress.

The appeals court said, “Each President is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House,” and it added that “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 placed its order on hold for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, while the BBC reported the decision paved the way for a Supreme Court showdown.

Trump said he would immediately appeal, and Fox News reported his Truth Social post called the 2-1 decision “horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful.”

Reporting for this sectionMFox News

Judges, dissent, and responses

The appeals court panel included Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia in the majority and Neomi Rao in dissent, with the BBC quoting the majority’s view that “Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help.” In a sharply worded opinion, the majority said “Congress has not ceded unfettered authority to the Executive Branch to dramatically redesign, reshape, and reconstruct the White House,” and it emphasized that the president is a temporary tenant rather than the owner. Trump responded by vowing to appeal, and the BBC reported he highlighted the dissenting judge’s view that the order is “a blatant abuse of discretion.”

The National Trust for Historic Preservation celebrated the ruling, and Reuters quoted Brent Leggs saying the decision marked “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.” In her dissent, Rao argued the National Trust did not have the jurisdiction to bring the lawsuit, and ABC News reported she said it is “likely within the President's authority to make improvements to the Executive Residence.”

Reporting for this sectionBBCABC News

Security claims and next steps

The dispute centers on whether national security concerns can justify the administration’s actions, with Reuters reporting that Trump increasingly claimed the ballroom project is a security necessity and referred to the structure as a “military center” on Truth Social.

Reuters said Trump argued the plan includes bomb shelters, medical facilities, shielding from drones and missiles, and other security features, while the court’s majority said national security arguments “are not an automatic get-out-of-law-free card.”

In the appeals court case, Justice Department attorney Yaakov Roth told the D.C. Circuit arguments on June 5 that the courts have no role in weighing the privately funded project, and Reuters quoted his position that the National Trust’s “architectural preference” should not take precedence over national security concerns.

The ruling does not permanently bar construction, and Reuters reported the judges said it halts above-ground work during the lawsuit and until the White House secures approval from Congress.

Trump’s next move is to seek Supreme Court review, and Fox News reported that the appeals court ruling was stayed for 14 days to allow defendants to seek a Supreme Court review, while Reuters said the order upheld the preliminary injunction won by the National Trust.

Reporting for this sectionM