The administration of Donald Trump has filed an emergency appeal invoking national security to resume construction of a controversial $400 million White House ballroom project, after a federal judge ordered work halted.
In its filing before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the administration argued that the court ruling has left the executive residence “open and exposed,” posing potential risks to the president, his family, and staff.
The legal dispute stems from a decision by US District Judge Richard Leon, who earlier this week ordered a temporary halt to the project and granted a 14-day window for appeal. Leon, appointed by George W. Bush, had expressed concern over what he described as “shifting theories” from the Justice Department regarding its justification for bypassing congressional approval.
At the centre of the controversy is whether a sitting president has the constitutional authority to approve major structural changes to the White House particularly the demolition of historically significant sections without legislative oversight.
The halted project occupies the site of the former East Wing, originally constructed in 1902 and later expanded during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The ballroom forms part of a broader redesign initiative under Trump, which also includes plans for a 250-foot ceremonial arch and renovations to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
The emergency motion, filed by the National Park Service, challenges the authority of the district court to hear the case, arguing that the lawsuit is based on what it described as “a single pedestrian’s subjective architectural feelings.”
The case was originally brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which contends that Trump exceeded his executive authority by demolishing the historic East Wing and initiating construction without proper approval.
Trump has dismissed the criticism, maintaining that congressional consent was unnecessary since the ballroom project is being funded by private donors rather than taxpayer money.
However, preservation experts have warned that the project lacks institutional safeguards. Richard Longstreth, a professor emeritus at George Washington University, noted that the absence of “checks and balances” raises serious concerns about precedent and governance.
Erizia Rubyjeana
Follow us on:
