A federal appeals court on Friday affirmed a U.S. judge’s ruling to block construction of the White House ballroom while allowing below-ground work to move forward.
In a 2-1 decision, a panel of judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the modified preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon. But it stayed its own ruling for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
President Donald Trump blasted the ruling in a post on his social media platform and vowed to “immediately” appeal the decision to the nation’s highest court.
Trump said the ballroom project, which includes the construction of an underground complex that would house military and security facilities, was “required for the National Security of Washington, D.C.”
“The Military and Secret Service are viewing this horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful ruling as a National Security threat to our Nation in that the entire Complex is being built for the protection of our Country and, additionally, all future Presidents,” Trump said, repeating an argument he has made throughout the proceedings in the case.
The decision also “jeopardizes the lives and welfare of the people who work, and will be working, at the White House — including all future Presidents of the United States, and their families, as well as the lives of all those visiting, such as Heads of State and other Dignitaries, and all Americans who wish to visit the historic, beautiful Executive Mansion,” Trump wrote.
The White House did not immediately respond to NBC News’ request for comment.
Brent Leggs, president of the plaintiff organization, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, praised the ruling in a statement, saying it shows the “White House, a global landmark that symbolizes American identity and the ideals of democracy, belongs to the American people.”
The appeals court’s ruling found that whether “a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help.”
That’s because the “Constitution assigns Congress — not the Executive — the responsibility to decide whether proposed changes to the physical design of the White House may proceed, even where those changes are said to serve security interests,” it said.
“Each President is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its Executive Residence,” the ruling said. “The President has no — and claims no — constitutionally assigned authority over that property.”
The ruling paints the current administration as completely ignoring those restrictions.
“Over just three days in October 2025, without undertaking promised consultations or obtaining Congress’s permission, President Trump bulldozed the entire East Wing in order to construct a massive, 90,000 square-foot ballroom paid for by private funds with no congressional oversight,” it said.
“We are aware of no instance in American history in which a President 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,” the court said.
The ruling by U.S. Circuit Judges Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, and Brad Garcia, a Biden appointee, says it “has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy. This ruling does not even necessarily mean that the Defendants may not ultimately construct the ballroom.”
“What it does mean is that the Defendants may not do so during the district court’s expeditious litigation without securing Congress’s authorization, as the Constitution and laws require,” they wrote.
The dissenting judge was Trump appointee Neomi Rao, who said the lower court had “abused its discretion in seizing control of construction at the President’s home and office” through the underlying order that her colleagues were upholding.
That judge had previously let some aspects of the construction move forward but then said the Trump administration was taking advantage of a safety and security exception to encompass the entire ballroom construction effort.
“Defendants argue that the entire ballroom construction project, from tip to tail, falls within the safety-and-security exception and therefore may proceed unabated. That is neither a reasonable nor a correct reading of my Order!” Leon, a noted fan of exclamation marks, wrote in his prior April order.
“It is, to say the least, incredible, if not disingenuous, that Defendants now argue that my Order does not stop ballroom construction because of the safety-and-security exception!” he added.
Rao argued Leon’s ruling was an “overreach” because the Trust didn’t have standing to sue and the ballroom is “likely within the President’s authority to make improvements to the Executive Residence at the White House.”
The majority disagreed on both counts and signed off on Leon’s order halting the ballroom construction while allowing building to continue on “below-ground construction, including construction of bunkers, bomb-shelters, and military and medical infrastructure, as well as above-ground construction ‘strictly necessary to cover, secure, and protect’ such facilities.”
They also said the administration directly caused some of the security concerns and delays it is now complaining about, writing that “any risk caused by the construction project and its multi-year timetable is overwhelmingly a problem of the Defendants’ own creation.”
“The Defendants unilaterally and likely without lawful authority destroyed a large portion of the White House structure and dug an open pit in its place,” they wrote. “Then, after commencing a lengthy construction project, they publicly announced to the world the vulnerabilities that self-chosen endeavor has created.”
“While this court accords great weight and deference to invocations of national security and the safety of the President, such arguments are not an automatic get-out-of-law-free card,” they wrote.
