A divided federal appeals court ruled that President Trump must halt construction of the White House ballroom because Congress never authorized the project, and Trump vowed to take the fight to the Supreme Court within hours.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit handed down a 136-page ruling Friday, splitting 2-1 along lines that will surprise no one in Washington. Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia, appointed by Presidents Obama and Biden, respectively, formed the majority. Trump appointee Judge Neomi Rao dissented, calling the lower court's original halt order "a blatant abuse of discretion." The ruling blocks above-ground work on the planned 90,000-square-foot ballroom but does not take effect for 14 days, giving the administration a narrow window to seek Supreme Court review.
Trump responded on Truth Social with a promise to appeal immediately and a sharp rebuke of the decision.
"The Military and Secret Service are viewing this horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful ruling as a National Security threat to our Nation."
That was Trump's message on Truth Social, where he also said the decision "severely jeopardizes the lives and welfare of the people who work, and will be working, at the White House." The president framed the ballroom not as a luxury but as a security upgrade designed to keep future presidents from traveling to vulnerable off-site venues for large events.
The majority opinion rested on a straightforward constitutional claim: Congress controls federal property, including the White House, and never handed that authority to the executive branch for a project of this scale. Millett and Garcia wrote that a president is "a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its Executive Residence," and that he "has no, and claims no, constitutionally assigned authority over that property."
The judges went further, noting they could find no precedent for what the administration attempted. As Breitbart reported, the majority wrote:
"We are aware of no instance in American history in which a President unilaterally and using privately collected funds demolished substantial portions of the White House that Congress authorized to be built and American taxpayers paid for. Until now."
The ruling did not say the ballroom is a bad idea. The majority was explicit on that point: "This holding has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy." What it means, the court said, is that the administration cannot proceed "without securing Congress's authorization, as the Constitution and laws require."
The majority also rejected the administration's national security argument as a blanket justification. The judges characterized the claim as an attempt to use security concerns as an "automatic get-out-of-law-free card" to bypass legal requirements, and stated that Congress "has not given the Park Service authority, specifically and expressly, or otherwise, to raze protected historic sites in the name of presidential functions or national security."
Judge Rao's dissent struck a sharply different tone. She argued the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the nonprofit that filed suit in December after workers bulldozed portions of the East Wing, lacked jurisdiction to bring the case in the first place. Beyond standing, Rao concluded it is "likely within the President's authority to make improvements to the Executive Residence" and that halting construction "inevitably extends the time during which the President's residence remains less secure."
Rao reserved her sharpest language for the lower court's original injunction. ABC News reported that she wrote:
"The district court elevated the aesthetic displeasure of a single passerby over the government's security interests in the ballroom and the security risks of leaving an open construction site at the President's home and office."
She also pointed to a concrete and chilling example. In a footnote, Rao cited the assassination attempt against President Trump at the Washington Hilton during the White House Correspondents' Dinner, writing that "the security risks presented by large offsite events involving the President were unfortunately confirmed" by that attack. The ballroom was designed, in part, to eliminate the need for presidents to attend high-profile events at hotels and convention centers where security is harder to control.
Rao called the preliminary injunction "a clear abuse of discretion" that "must be vacated," and warned that "the government should not be forced to rely on the district court's architectural approval to secure the President's home and office."
The legal dispute did not arise in a vacuum. AP News reported that Congress previously refused a $1 billion administration request for the ballroom in May, and that Democrats warned $350 million in tax cut funds appeared to have been redirected to the White House for the project. That refusal forms a critical piece of the majority's logic: if Congress declined to fund the ballroom, the administration's decision to press ahead with privately collected funds looks less like routine maintenance and more like an end-run around the appropriations process.
The project's cost has itself been a moving target. The source and several outlets cite a $400 million figure. The New York Post reported the ballroom could cost upward of $600 million. Either number dwarfs typical White House renovation budgets and underscores why the court treated the project as something Congress should weigh in on.
The White House announced the ballroom project last July. By late October, workers had begun demolishing portions of the East Wing, suddenly and without the kind of public process that usually accompanies changes to a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed suit in December, arguing the administration lacked authority to raze a protected historic structure without congressional sign-off.
A federal district court judge, identified in supporting coverage as U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, blocked the above-ground construction. In April, Leon modified the injunction to allow certain work to continue: "below-ground construction of national security facilities, work necessary to provide for presidential security, and construction necessary to protect and secure the White House and the construction site itself." That compromise left the ballroom itself on hold while permitting bunker and security upgrades underground.
As of August 5, two days before the appeals court ruling, construction activity was still visible at the White House site. Friday's ruling upheld Leon's injunction and added the appeals court's own constitutional reasoning on top of it.
The practical effect is a two-week countdown. If the Supreme Court does not intervene, above-ground ballroom construction must stop. Below-ground national security work and site-security measures can continue under the existing modified injunction. The Washington Examiner noted the 14-day pause was specifically designed to give the Justice Department time to file an emergency application with the high court.
Whether the Supreme Court takes the case, and how quickly, will determine whether the half-built site sits idle through the fall or whether construction resumes. The constitutional question is genuinely novel: no prior president attempted anything comparable, and the justices will have to decide whether the D.C. Circuit's reading of congressional authority over federal property holds up.
The majority insisted its ruling carries no judgment on the ballroom's merits. "It is Congress's job to ensure that any major construction and security projects at the White House will protect the safety of all Presidents, present and future, while preserving the historical and architectural significance of that unique location," the judges wrote. "Congress cannot perform its constitutional function when the Executive chooses to proceed wholly unilaterally."
That framing puts the ball squarely in Congress's court, the same Congress that already turned down the funding request once. If lawmakers want the ballroom built, they can authorize it. If they do not, the administration's path narrows to whatever the Supreme Court is willing to carve out.
Two Obama-and-Biden appointees told a president he cannot secure his own home without permission from a Congress that already said no. If that is not a case the Supreme Court should settle, it is hard to imagine what would be.
