Trump Ballroom Lawsuit: Injunction, DOJ Appeal, and Amicus Briefs

The Trump ballroom lawsuit is a federal case filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in December 2025 to stop President Donald Trump from demolishing the White House East Wing and building a 90,000-square-foot ballroom in its place without congressional authorization. A district judge ordered construction halted in March 2026. The D.C. Circuit stayed that order weeks later, and above-ground work has continued while the appeal is pending.¹

Who Sued and What They Are Arguing

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a congressionally chartered private organization with roughly 750,000 members,² filed National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service on December 12, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (case no. 1:25-cv-04316). The named defendants include the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, the General Services Administration, their agency heads, and President Trump himself.³

The complaint raises four core claims:

Congress has not authorized the project. Under 40 U.S.C. § 8106, no structure may be erected on federal public grounds in Washington, D.C., without express congressional authority.
No environmental review was completed. The National Environmental Policy Act requires an assessment or impact statement before major federal construction, and none preceded demolition.
The required planning bodies were bypassed. Federal law directs that development plans in the National Capital go to the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts before work begins.
The Constitution’s Property, Appropriations, and District Clauses vest Congress, not the president, with control over federal property, spending, and the governance of Washington, D.C.

The Trust is represented by Gregory Craig of Foley Hoag, a former White House Counsel under President Obama. Craig has argued that the suit “does not jeopardize the President’s safety in any way,” noting the Trust has consistently agreed to let underground bunker construction proceed.⁴

The Trust’s standing rests on a single member: Alison Hoagland, a Washington, D.C., resident who sits on the Trust’s board. Hoagland stated in a declaration that she walks past the White House about once a month and that the construction harms her aesthetic enjoyment of the historic grounds. The district court accepted that as an “aesthetic injury” sufficient for associational standing. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, dissenting from a later order, called it a “generalized grievance” rather than the concrete injury the Constitution requires.⁵⁶

The Project the Lawsuit Is Trying to Stop

President Trump announced the project on July 31, 2025, describing a ballroom that would seat up to 999 people on the footprint of the demolished East Wing. Beneath it, the plan includes an underground military installation with bomb shelters, medical facilities, bulletproof glass, drone detection, and chemical filtration.⁷ Demolition began in October 2025, roughly two months before the lawsuit was filed.

The publicly cited cost has climbed from $200 million at announcement to $400 million by March 2026 to an internal contractor estimate of $600 million reported by the Washington Post in June 2026. Roughly $293 million comes from private donors channeled through the Trust for the National Mall, with the balance covered by federal agencies: $155 million from the Secret Service, $149 million from the White House Military Office, and $3 million from the Executive Residence budget.⁸⁹ Trump has argued that congressional approval is unnecessary because the project is privately funded.¹⁰

Two federal design bodies signed off during the litigation. The Commission of Fine Arts voted for final approval on February 19, 2026, in a session its own secretary, Thomas Luebke, called “highly unusual” for skipping from preliminary to final review. More than 99 percent of the 2,000-plus public comments the panel received opposed the project.¹¹ The National Capital Planning Commission approved the project on April 2, 2026, and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact the same day, with D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson casting the lone dissent.¹²

The District Court Injunction

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, granted a preliminary injunction on March 31, 2026, ordering construction halted until Congress authorized the project.¹³ Leon wrote that “the President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” He found the Trust likely to succeed on the merits and concluded that “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”¹⁴

The order carved out an exception for work “strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House,” including the underground bunker, and Leon delayed enforcement for 14 days to allow the government to appeal.¹⁵

When the administration argued that the entire project fell under national security, Leon issued a revised order on April 16, 2026, tightening the exception. He wrote that “national security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity” and noted the government had earlier told the court that below-ground security work and above-ground ballroom construction were distinct. The revised order allowed limited above-ground work only if it was strictly necessary to cover and protect the underground facilities, and only if it did not “lock in the above-ground size and scale of the ballroom.”¹⁶

The Appeal and the DOJ’s Position

The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On April 11, 2026, a three-judge panel of Judges Patricia Millett, Neomi Rao, and Bradley Garcia extended the stay of Leon’s injunction and remanded the case, saying it could not resolve the factual dispute over whether above-ground work was truly necessary for security while the government’s position kept shifting. The administration had initially told courts the two phases were separable, then began calling them “inseparable.”⁶¹⁷ The stay has allowed construction to keep going.

Then came a shooting. On April 25, 2026, a gunman named Cole Tomas Allen ran through a magnetometer at the Washington Hilton during the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, armed with a shotgun and a pistol, and fired at least one shot. A Secret Service officer was hit in his ballistic vest and returned fire. Allen was arrested and charged with attempting to assassinate the president.¹⁸

The next day, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche posted on social media, “It’s time to build the ballroom,” and the Justice Department sent the National Trust a letter demanding the organization drop its suit by 9 a.m. Monday. Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate called the Hilton “demonstrably unsafe” and described the ballroom as a “national security necessity” to “prevent future assassination attempts.”¹⁹ A DOJ filing signed by Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stan Woodward called the case “frivolous” and accused the Trust of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”²⁰

The Trust refused to withdraw. President Carol Quillen said the suit “endangers no one” and that the organization was asking the administration to “follow the law.”²¹

Oral Arguments

The D.C. Circuit heard argument on June 5, 2026. DOJ attorney Yaakov Roth told the panel that even if the court found the construction unlawful, “no court” could order the ballroom torn down; only Congress could stop it, and judges could at most declare it illegal. Judge Millett asked whether the judiciary was powerless even in cases of “complete lawlessness,” and Roth answered, “I think that’s right.” Pressed on a hypothetical in which the government bulldozed the Statue of Liberty, Roth said observers would have no legal recourse.¹²²

The administration’s affirmative legal theory rests on 3 U.S.C. § 105(d)(1), which authorizes spending on the “care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement” of the Executive Residence, together with the National Park Service Organic Act and the Economy Act to justify routing private donations through NPS.²³ Judge Garcia questioned whether laws written for routine maintenance and park regulation could support demolishing and replacing a wing of the White House, and pointed to the § 8106 requirement of express congressional authorization for new structures on federal land in the capital.¹

Amicus Briefs and the Fight in Congress

On May 28, 2026, 143 members of Congress led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representatives Robert Garcia and Jared Huffman filed an amicus brief arguing that Congress alone controls federal property and appropriations and that the president cannot demolish part of the White House without authorization and a funding measure.²⁴ The Constitutional Accountability Center filed a brief the same day arguing that “alteration” in the residence statute cannot mean demolishing an entire wing, and that Congress had actually appropriated only $2.475 million for White House maintenance against the project’s $400 million-plus price tag.²⁵ A coalition of 11 preservation and architecture groups, including the American Institute of Architects and the DC Preservation League, filed a third brief arguing the administration had bypassed established review standards for a National Historic Landmark.²⁶

Republicans have tried twice to give the project the congressional blessing courts have said is missing. Senators Lindsey Graham, Katie Britt, and Eric Schmitt introduced the White House Safety and Security Act of 2026 in late April to authorize the work.²⁷²⁸²⁹

Where the Case Stands

As of mid-June 2026, the D.C. Circuit has not ruled following the June 5 oral arguments. Judge Leon’s injunction remains formally in place but is stayed by the appeals court, which is the mechanism keeping construction going. Above-ground portions of the new structure have visibly risen at the site. Neither the standalone authorization bill nor the reconciliation route has produced a law, so the congressional-authorization question at the heart of the Trust’s complaint remains unresolved. The project is not expected to be completed until summer 2028.¹⁶

1
CNN. White House Ballroom Appeals Court Hearing
2
National Trust for Historic Preservation. Trust History
3
Washington Post. National Trust Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
4
Washington Post. Trump Ballroom National Trust Lawsuit
5
NPR. This Woman Is at the Center of the Legal Claim Against Trumps Ballroom Project
6
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Order in Case No. 26-5101
7
FactCheck.org. Whos Paying for the White House Ballroom
8
Washington Post. Records Reveal $600M Estimate for Trumps Ballroom Project
9
Katherine Clark, U.S. House of Representatives. Trump Ballroom Soars to $600M With Taxpayers on Hook for Half
10
The Hill. Trump Ballroom Lawsuit Halted
11
New York Times. Trump Ballroom Fine Arts Commission
12
National Capital Planning Commission. East Wing Modernization Project
13
Federal Judicial Center. Leon, Richard J.
14
NPR. Judge Rules White House Ballroom Construction Must Halt Until Congress OKs It
15
ABC News. Federal Judge Orders Halt to White House Ballroom Construction
16
CNBC. White House Ballroom Trump Judge
17
CBS News. Federal Appeals Court White House Ballroom Construction Lawsuit
18
U.S. Department of Justice. Suspect in White House Correspondents Dinner Shooting Charged With Attempt to Assassinate President
19
Washington Post. Todd Blanche White House Ballroom Trump
20
CNN. Trump Tone White House Ballroom Filing
21
E&E News. Preservation Group Rejects DOJ Request to Drop Trump Ballroom Lawsuit
22
New York Times. Appeals Court Trump Ballroom
23
Reason. Even if Trumps Ballroom Project Is Illegal a DOJ Lawyer Says the Courts Cannot Stop It
24
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Whitehouse Garcia Huffman Lead 143 Members in Filing Amicus Brief
25
Constitutional Accountability Center. National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service
26
Society of Architectural Historians. Coalition of Nonprofit Organizations File Amicus Curiae Brief in White House Ballroom Case
27
Senator Lindsey Graham. Graham Britt Schmitt Introduce Legislation
28
Politico. Ballroom Security Funding Reconciliation
29
The Guardian. White House Ballroom Funding Republicans