Listen to the article
In a court filing Monday, the Trump administration defended its ongoing White House ballroom construction project, claiming it must continue for unspecified national security reasons and arguing that preservationists seeking to halt the work lack legal standing to sue.
The filing responds to a lawsuit brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation last Friday, which asked a federal judge to stop President Donald Trump’s project until it completes multiple independent reviews, undergoes public comment, and receives congressional approval.
Matthew C. Quinn, deputy director of the U.S. Secret Service, stated in a declaration that continued work at the former East Wing site is necessary to meet the agency’s “safety and security requirements.” While specific security concerns weren’t detailed in the public filing, the administration has offered to share classified information with the judge privately, without the plaintiffs present.
The East Wing, which was demolished in October, had been positioned above an emergency operations bunker for the president. Quinn emphasized that even temporarily stopping construction would “hamper” the agency’s ability to fulfill its protective duties.
A federal court hearing in Washington was scheduled for Tuesday on the matter.
The government’s response provides the most comprehensive look to date at the ballroom project, revealing details about its approval process and expanding scope. According to court documents, final plans for the ballroom have not yet been completed despite ongoing demolition and site preparation work. John Stanwich, the National Park Service’s liaison to the White House, wrote that below-ground work continues, with foundation work set to begin in January. Above-ground construction isn’t expected to start until April 2026 “at the earliest.”
The National Trust for Historic Preservation did not respond to requests for comment about the administration’s filing. In its lawsuit, the organization had stated, “No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever — not President Trump, not President Biden, and not anyone else.”
Trump’s vision involves building an estimated $300 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom capable of accommodating approximately 1,000 people before his term ends in January 2029. The president has argued that previous administrations wanted a larger event space than what’s currently available at the White House, and that the new facility would eliminate the need for temporary pavilions on the south grounds when hosting foreign dignitaries.
The Trust contends that plans should have been submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, and Congress before any demolition occurred. The organization notes that it wrote to these entities and the National Park Service on October 21 after East Wing demolition began, urging a halt to the project and requesting compliance with federal law, but received no response.
In its legal response, the administration argues that the president has authority to modify the White House and detailed the extensive history of changes to the Executive Mansion over its 200-year history. Justice Department attorneys assert that the president is not subject to the statutes cited by the plaintiffs.
The government contends that claims about the East Wing demolition are now “moot” since the structure has already been torn down and cannot be restored. It further argues that complaints about future construction are “unripe” because plans remain unfinalized, and that the Trust cannot establish “irreparable harm” given that above-ground construction won’t begin until spring. The administration claims that the reviews sought in the lawsuit “will soon be underway without this Court’s involvement.”
The ballroom project has faced significant criticism from historic preservation experts, architectural professionals, and Trump’s political opponents. However, this lawsuit represents the most concrete effort so far to challenge or modify his plans for an addition that would be nearly twice the size of the White House prior to the East Wing demolition.
According to the administration’s filing, the National Park Service’s Comprehensive Design Plan for the White House identified the need for a larger event space back in 2000, citing increased visitor numbers and the need for a venue suitable for major events.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
6 Comments
Curious to hear more about the emergency operations bunker and how this new construction will impact it. Seems like an important facility that needs careful consideration before any major changes.
While I understand the need for the president’s safety, the administration needs to be more forthcoming about the specifics here. Citing national security without evidence feels like an excuse to avoid public scrutiny.
This is a complex issue where security needs have to be balanced with preservation of historic spaces. I hope the court can find a reasonable compromise that addresses both sets of concerns.
This raises a lot of questions about transparency and oversight when it comes to major renovations at the White House. I hope the court can get a full accounting of the security rationale before allowing the project to proceed.
Interesting that the administration is invoking national security to justify this White House construction project. I wonder what specific security concerns are driving it. Seems like they should be able to provide more details publicly.
It’s concerning that the administration wants to share classified info with the judge without the plaintiffs present. Transparency and public input should be the priority for a project of this scale and significance.