US appeals court blocks Trump's $400 million White House ballroom, Supreme Court appeal next

Court ruling

On Friday, August 7, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a preliminary injunction halting construction of President Donald Trump's White House ballroom, voting 2-1. Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia, appointed by Democratic presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden respectively, formed the majority, while Judge Neomi Rao dissented. The ruling confirmed a lower court order issued earlier in 2026, which ANSA dates to April and Die Welt to March, pausing the project until Congress expressly authorizes it.

The court's opinion began with a reflection on the White House as the "people's house," emphasizing that Congress controls the building and its surrounding property. The judges wrote that they were aware of no instance in American history in which a president had 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. Millett and Garcia wrote that the president has no, and claims no, constitutionally assigned authority over the property, which is maintained for the use of all presidents, current and future, and for the American people.

The project

The ballroom project, estimated at approximately $400 million, would replace the century-old East Wing of the White House, which was demolished in October 2025. The planned ballroom covers approximately 90,000 square feet (about 8,360 square meters). Trump has described the structure as a gift to the American people, though federal funding from tax dollars has been involved. The project is one of several launched by Trump in his second term regarding the architecture of federal buildings.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed the original lawsuit, alleging that Trump did not seek proper authorization from Congress before starting construction. The court agreed, writing that allowing construction to proceed would cause "permanent and irreversible harm" to the "historic, architectural, and aesthetic interests" represented by the plaintiffs. The judges found that Congress had not delegated authority over the project to either the president or the National Park Service. The majority wrote that "whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help."

Trump's response

Trump reacted angrily on Truth Social, calling the decision a "national disgrace" and a threat to national security of the highest level. He argued that the project includes underground military bunkers, medical facilities, drone and missile protection, and other security features, all connected in what he described as one large, expensive, and highly complex unit. He characterized the structure as a "military center" and said the ruling leaves White House officials and visitors exposed to attacks. He described the ballroom as "totally secure" and "desperately needed."

“This unjust decision must be overturned by the Supreme Court in its entirety.”

Trump also pushed back on the court's framing of presidential authority, writing that presidents are not mere tenants and have numerous rights, including the right to repair, renovate, secure, protect, and beautify the White House domain without Congress's permission. He criticized the court's reasoning on standing, arguing that the plaintiff has none, and said the decision "severely jeopardizes the lives and welfare of the people who work, and will be working, at the White House."

What happens next

The appeals court stayed its ruling for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court, which Trump confirmed he would do immediately. The court noted that its decision does not address whether the ballroom should ultimately be built, nor does it establish that the ballroom cannot be built in the future, only that Congress must authorize it. The case sets up another confrontation before the Supreme Court over the limits of presidential power during Trump's second term.

Upheld (Millett, Garcia)2

Dissented (Rao)1

Upheld (Millett, Garcia)

2 votes

Dissented (Rao)

1 votes

Data from the article text