President Donald Trump's administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to permit the ongoing construction of the White House ballroom. This request comes after a federal appeals court ordered a halt to the $400 million project, citing a lack of congressional approval. The administration is asking for an emergency stay of this injunction, which would allow above-ground construction of the East Wing and ballroom to proceed while legal challenges unfold. The solicitor general argues that the injunction is "extraordinary and unlawful" and jeopardizes the president's security.
The administration emphasizes national security as a key justification for the project, with President Trump increasingly claiming the ballroom complex, including a potential "drone port" on its roof, is vital for U.S. military readiness. Declarations from top government officials, including the Secretary of State, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and heads of the FBI and Secret Service, support these claims. The appeal also cites alleged assassination attempts and a missile threat against Air Force One to underscore the urgency of the security enhancements.
The project is described as 65% complete, with $200 million already spent or committed, and a 250-person crew working 20 hours a day. White House officials assert that stopping construction now would be catastrophic, with the concrete-and-steel superstructure deemed "beyond the point of no return." They argue that the freestanding walls cannot be safely left as they are without being integrated with structural steel. The administration claims the project is on time, under budget, and requires "zero taxpayer dollars," despite Senate Democrats requesting an audit of its funding and transparency.
Lower courts have repeatedly ruled that President Trump requires congressional approval for the ballroom project, which involves demolishing the White House's East Wing. The appeals court had paused its decision for 14 days to allow Trump to appeal to the Supreme Court. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, urged the Supreme Court not to allow construction to continue during the appeal process, raising concerns about the scale, destruction of historic architecture, and the opaque mix of public and private funding sources.
