DC Circuit appears unconvinced national security claims justify White House ballroom

WASHINGTON (CN) — A D.C. Circuit panel on Friday appeared likely to block President Donald Trump’s proposed 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the White House grounds, signaling that only Congress has the authority to approve such a project.

The three-judge panel heard arguments in the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s storied lawsuit, which has seen a federal judge twice block construction on the $400 million project and has already been before the panel.

Trump has argued the ballroom is vital to national security, saying the building’s extensive reinforcements would protect the president and other senior officials from threats ranging from drone strikes to chemical attacks.

Justice Department attorney Jacob Roth, who defended the project before Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in March, argued the National Trust and its member, Alison Hoagland, could not claim an aesthetic injury from the ballroom’s construction.

Roth said any harm caused by changes to the White House grounds was outweighed by national security concerns and the fact the ballroom would be visible only from limited vantage points.

U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett asked whether the descendant of a slave who built the White House itself could claim such a harm, which Roth rejected. The Barack Obama appointee then expanded the question to other national icons.

“If the government decides  very quickly to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, the people whose ancestors — that was the very first thing they saw coming to this country, but the government moved too fast — nothing can be done?” Millett asked.

“I think that’s right, yes,” Roth replied. He then rehashed the government’s position that such unilateral construction on the White House was authorized under two statutes, the National Park Service’s Organic Act and U.S. Code Section 105(d).

Roth maintained the Organic Act authorizes the National Park Service to regulate the park system as necessary, and the ballroom project advances the “fundamental purpose” of President’s Park by modernizing facilities and improving security for Trump and future presidents.

He also argued that Section 105(d) empowers the president to make any “alteration” or “improvement” to the White House with limited congressional oversight.

U.S. Circuit Judge Bradley Garcia, a Joe Biden appointee, questioned how that interpretation squares with 40 U.S. Code Section 8106, which requires express congressional authorization before a building may be erected on federal land in Washington.

Garcia noted that, under the government’s theory, the park service statute’s authorization of actions that “promote” the national park system amounts to express authority to erect new buildings. Roth agreed.

On March 31, Leon blocked construction of the ballroom, finding that no law gives the president unilateral authority to proceed without congressional approval and emphasizing the president is the White House’s “steward,” not its owner.

On April 16, the George W. Bush appointee clarified his preliminary injunction to allow work on an underground bunker beneath the ballroom to continue, agreeing with the government that a “safety-and-security exception” applied.

That decision followed an April 11panel ruling to stay his March 31 ruling.

Roth further asserted that the National Trust lacked standing, in part, because they filed their suit in December, months after a “large new structure” would be erected in July 2025.

Millett was unconvinced, noting the government indicated around that same time it would participate in a public notice period, which only began after the East Wing was demolished in October. If the National Trust had sued in July, the government would have argued the lawsuit was not ripe, Millett said.

“So just move fast and break things, then nobody has standing,” Millett said.

She later asked Roth whether, if the appeals court granted the stay it requested but then later found the government failed on the merits a year later, if the ballroom could be taken down.

Roth said the government would oppose any such permanent injunction and that such an order could only come from Congress.

“When did it become impossible for courts to stop this?” Millett asked, adding whether it was when the East Wing was demolished or when the underground portion began.

“I think it would have been improper to enjoin it even on day one,” Roth said.

“If this were complete lawlessness by the government, couldn’t be stopped,” Millett said.

“I think that’s right,” Roth replied.

Thaddeus Heuer, of Foley Hoag and representing the National Trust, urged the panel to affirm Leon’s preliminary injunction and the fact that Congress, not the president, owns the White House.

“Everyone understands, if you go to Yellowstone [National Park], you use the park by going and looking and Old Faithful, you look at the bison, you look at the mountains, that’s how you use Yellowstone,” Heuer said.

Similarly, Americans use the White House complex the same way as a site “for national discourse about what it means to be an American,” he said.

U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, was doubtful and asked how the National Trust could equate its harms to the national security concerns raised by the government.

Heuer noted that Leon reviewed four classified submissions detailing the extent of the national security claims, yet still blocked construction of the ballroom.

Follow @Ryan_Knappy