WASHINGTON, Aug 7 – A federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s administration cannot proceed with aboveground construction of a proposed $400 million ballroom at the White House without authorization from Congress, delivering a significant setback to one of the president’s most ambitious changes to the historic presidential complex.
The 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld an earlier order preventing the administration from continuing construction of the planned 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the site of the former East Wing. The ruling does not permanently prohibit the project, but it requires congressional approval before aboveground construction can move forward while the underlying legal dispute continues.
Trump quickly rejected the decision and said his administration would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a lengthy social media statement, the president described the ruling as unjust and argued that the project is closely tied to national security.
The decision came as construction had already progressed beyond the initial stages, with recent aerial imagery showing parts of the structure beginning to rise on the eastern side of the White House. The appeals court agreed to keep its ruling on hold for 14 days, giving the administration time to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the president has the authority to undertake such a large structural alteration to the White House complex without an explicit act of Congress. The court concluded that the administration does not have unilateral authority to proceed.
The judges emphasized that their ruling was not a judgment on whether a new ballroom would be useful, desirable or appropriate as a matter of policy. Instead, the question before them was whether the executive branch could undertake the project without congressional authorization.
The ruling leaves open the possibility that the ballroom could eventually be constructed if Congress approves it. Until then, however, the administration faces a legal barrier to continuing aboveground work.
Trump insists Congress’ approval is unnecessary
Trump has maintained that the ballroom is about more than providing a large venue for presidential events. In his response to the court ruling, he highlighted plans for the complex to contain extensive security and emergency infrastructure, including bomb shelters, medical facilities, a hospital and highly classified military installations.
The president argued that the project is being developed to protect the White House, the president and future administrations from potential threats. He described the court’s decision as politically motivated and warned that blocking the project could create a national security concern.
The administration has also argued that the project can proceed without congressional approval because private donations, rather than ordinary taxpayer funding, are being used to finance construction.
Trump has said he secured hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations, wealthy individuals and other donors, with the president himself also contributing to the effort. The administration had nevertheless sought $1 billion from Congress for the ballroom, but lawmakers rejected the request in May.
The financing question has become another major point of contention. In June, congressional Democrats raised concerns that approximately $350 million from legislation involving tax cuts appeared to have been redirected toward White House security-related spending. They questioned whether some of that money could ultimately support infrastructure associated with the ballroom project.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the lawsuit challenging the construction, has argued that the administration cannot bypass Congress simply by relying on private financing or by describing portions of the project as security-related.
The preservation organization welcomed Friday’s ruling, saying it reinforced the legal authority of Congress over major construction at the White House.
Brent Leggs, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, said the organization had consistently maintained that federal law requires congressional authorization for construction of a ballroom at the White House. The group said the appeals court’s decision preserves the public’s ability to have a voice in changes to historically significant sites.
The legal battle began after the administration ordered the demolition of the White House East Wing in 2025. The demolition was completed in December, clearing the site for the proposed ballroom.
Trump has said the new facility would accommodate up to 999 people and provide the White House with a permanent space for large-scale gatherings, state functions and other official events.
The project would represent the largest structural alteration to the White House in more than seven decades, making the preservation dispute particularly significant. Government attorneys have argued that modern security requirements justify extensive changes to the complex, pointing to threats that could include drones, ballistic missiles and biological attacks.
They have maintained that security upgrades, alterations and improvements are integral to the entire construction plan and are necessary to protect the president, his family, White House employees and the building itself.
Preservation advocates have disputed that argument, saying the absence of a ballroom does not constitute a national security emergency that allows the executive branch to bypass Congress.
Court allows underground security work to continue
Friday’s ruling followed months of litigation between the administration and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, previously ordered the administration to stop aboveground construction. His April 16 ruling allowed work below ground to continue, including construction associated with a bunker and other facilities that the government characterized as necessary for national security.
The government appealed that decision, prompting the appeals court to examine whether the lower court had given sufficient consideration to the administration’s national security arguments.
In its latest ruling, the appeals panel largely upheld Leon’s decision. The court made clear that its order applies to aboveground construction of the ballroom and does not prevent the administration from continuing authorized underground work.
That distinction means construction crews can continue work on portions of the project involving underground security infrastructure, including potential bunkers, military facilities and medical installations, while the legal dispute over the ballroom itself proceeds.
The three judges assigned to the appeals case were Neomi Rao, Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia. Rao, a Trump nominee, dissented from the majority decision. Millett, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, and Garcia, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, supported the ruling.
Trump relied heavily on Rao’s dissent when criticizing the majority decision, arguing that the dissent better reflected the administration’s position that the president possesses sufficient authority to proceed.
The dispute has also placed the White House project within a broader debate over presidential power, congressional authority and the protection of historic federal properties.
The National Capital Planning Commission, the federal body responsible for reviewing major construction and planning proposals in the Washington region, gave the ballroom final approval on April 2. That approval cleared one major regulatory hurdle but did not resolve the separate legal question over whether Congress must authorize the construction.
The administration now faces the possibility of taking the dispute to the Supreme Court. The appeals court’s 14-day stay gives the White House a limited window to seek further review before the ruling takes effect.
For Trump, the case is about both the future of the White House complex and the scope of presidential authority. For preservationists and their supporters, it is a test of whether historic federal property can undergo a major transformation without congressional involvement.
The immediate impact is clear: aboveground construction of the proposed ballroom cannot continue under the appeals court’s ruling unless Congress provides the authorization the judges said was required. The administration can continue permitted underground security work, but the centerpiece of the project remains tied to a legal battle that could ultimately reach the nation’s highest court.