A federal appeals court ruled Saturday that construction on President Donald Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom may continue until at least April 17, and directed the lower-court judge who halted the project to take a harder look at whether his order puts the president, his family, and White House staff at risk.
The 2-1 ruling from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit does not settle the underlying fight over whether Trump needs congressional authorization to build the 90,000-square-foot facility. But it does something the administration had been pushing for: it forces U.S. District Judge Richard Leon to clarify whether, and how, his March 31 injunction interferes with the government’s claims about safety and security at the White House.
That distinction matters. The White House has argued from the start that halting construction leaves the site exposed and vulnerable, a claim the appeals court took seriously enough to keep the project moving while the legal fight plays out.
The panel, Judges Patricia Millett, Neomi Rao, and Bradley Garcia, stopped short of fully overturning Leon’s order, but made clear the record before them was insufficient to resolve the security question. The court wrote:
“We cannot fairly determine, on this hurried record, whether and to what extent the district court’s ‘necessary for safety and security’ exception addresses Defendants’ claims of irreparable harm, insofar as it may accommodate the Defendants’ asserted safety and security need for the ballroom itself or other temporary measures to secure the safety and security of the White House, the President, staff, and visitors while this appeal proceeds.”
That language puts the ball squarely back in Judge Leon’s court. Leon had exempted construction work “necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House” when he issued the injunction. He also said he reviewed classified material the government privately submitted before determining that a halt would not jeopardize national security.
The appeals panel wasn’t buying that as the final word. It extended the pause on Leon’s injunction through April 17, giving the Trump administration time to seek Supreme Court review if needed, AP News reported.
Government lawyers have argued that the ballroom project includes far more than a grand event space. They told the court the construction encompasses critical security features designed to guard against drones, ballistic missiles, and biohazards. Trump himself has said the U.S. military is installing a “heavily fortified” facility beneath the ballroom, including bomb shelters and a medical facility.
The appeals court noted a wrinkle in the administration’s position. The White House had previously argued that below-ground security work was “distinct from construction of the ballroom itself and could proceed independently.” Now the administration says those security upgrades are “inseparable” from the project as a whole. The panel flagged this shift, asking Leon to sort out “whether and to what extent” the two can be separated.
That kind of inconsistency in legal argument is the sort of thing judges notice. But the panel still found the government’s core claim credible enough to keep construction going, a sign that the security dimension of this case carries real weight, whatever one thinks of the ballroom itself.
In a number of recent federal court battles over executive authority, judges have had to weigh the government’s stated interests against claims that the administration overstepped. This case follows the same pattern, with the added complication of classified security evidence that the public cannot review.
Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, went further than her colleagues. In a dissenting opinion, she cited a statute that allows the president to undertake improvements to the White House and argued the majority did not go far enough. Rao wrote:
“Importantly, the government has presented credible evidence of ongoing security vulnerabilities at the White House that would be prolonged by halting construction.”
Rao also dismissed the opposing side’s claims as “generalized aesthetic harms”, a pointed characterization of the preservationist argument that the project damages the historic character of the White House. Her dissent suggests that at least one member of the appellate bench sees the legal landscape tilting in the administration’s favor.
The other two panelists, Millett, an Obama nominee, and Garcia, a Biden nominee, declined to go that far but still allowed construction to proceed temporarily. That bipartisan composition makes the ruling harder to dismiss as a partisan favor.
The East Wing of the White House, originally built in 1902 during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency and expanded in 1942, was demolished to make way for the new ballroom. The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued in December, just one week after demolition was completed, claiming Trump exceeded his authority and needed congressional authorization for the project.
Judge Leon sided with the preservationists on March 31, issuing an injunction that halted construction. He stayed the order for 14 days to allow the administration to appeal. His language was blunt. “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!” Leon wrote, as Breitbart reported.
Leon also stated: “It is not too late for Congress to authorize the continued construction of the ballroom project.” That framing, treating congressional approval as the missing ingredient, is the legal theory the preservationists have ridden throughout the case.
Trump pushed back. He has said presidents have historically had say over White House remodeling and has pointed out that Congress does not have to pay for the privately funded project. “We built many things at the White House over the years. They don’t get congressional approval,” Trump said, as the Washington Times reported.
The legal fight has unfolded against a backdrop of multiple federal judges challenging Trump administration actions on various fronts, from immigration policy to executive spending authority. Each case raises the same fundamental question: where does presidential power end and congressional prerogative begin?
While the courts have wrestled with the construction question, the administrative side of the project has kept moving. The National Capital Planning Commission voted 8-1 to proceed with planning approval for the ballroom, reasoning that Leon’s ruling bars actual construction but not the planning process. White House officials have said above-ground construction could begin as early as this month if the legal obstacles are cleared.
Trump shared a rendering of the proposed ballroom on Truth Social on Feb. 3, 2026. The design was created by McCrery Architects.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, for its part, expressed measured satisfaction with the appeals court’s decision to send the case back to Leon. CEO Carol Quillen said the organization remains committed “to honoring the historic significance of the White House, advocating for our collective role as stewards, and demonstrating how broad consultation, including with the American people, results in a better overall outcome.”
That language, “broad consultation, including with the American people”, hints at the preservationists’ broader strategy: frame the ballroom as a unilateral act that bypasses public input. Whether that argument holds up against the administration’s security claims is exactly what Leon must now reconsider.
The immediate question is straightforward: will Judge Leon narrow or clarify his injunction before April 17? If he does not, the administration can take the matter to the Supreme Court. Just The News noted that the underlying dispute over whether congressional authorization is required remains unresolved.
Several open questions hang over the case. What specific security work falls under Leon’s safety-and-security exception? Can the below-ground fortifications truly be separated from the ballroom itself? And will the classified evidence the government submitted, which the public has not seen, ultimately tip the balance?
The courts have been busy with consequential rulings touching on executive power in recent months. This case may seem unusual, a fight over a ballroom, but the legal principles at stake are anything but decorative. The question of what a president can build, fund, and secure on the grounds of his own official residence goes to the heart of executive authority.
And the security dimension is not a sideshow. If the government’s claims about vulnerabilities are as credible as the appeals court suggested, then a judge who halts construction without fully accounting for those risks is making a decision with consequences far beyond historic preservation. Courts that ignore real-world consequences in favor of procedural abstractions tend to find their rulings overturned, or simply overtaken by events.
When a preservation group’s “generalized aesthetic harms” are weighed against the physical safety of the president and his staff, the scale should not be hard to read.
By signing up, you agree to receive our newsletters and promotional content and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.