US court orders halt to Trump ballroom construction

An appeals court has upheld a lower court's order to halt construction on Donald Trump's controversial White House ballroom, intensifying a legal battle over presidential authority. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit agreed that such a significant renovation requires explicit consent from Congress.

The court granted a two-week stay on its decision, providing Trump an opportunity to seek intervention from the Supreme Court. President Trump reacted furiously to the 2-1 ruling, which was made by judges appointed by Democratic presidents, while the dissenting judge was nominated by Trump himself. He took to social media to denounce the decision, labeling it "horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful."

“

This decision, made after much of the work has been done and paid for, is a National Security Threat at the highest level. It is also a National Disgrace.

Trump argued that the halt constitutes a "National Security Threat at the highest level" and a "National Disgrace." He has repeatedly pointed to the concurrent addition of an underground military bunker and other security features as justifications for the ballroom project, which he initially presented as necessary for hosting galas. The initial order from the district judge allowed construction to continue only on limited, underground structures.

The majority opinion stated that the ruling does not necessarily mean the ballroom cannot be built, but rather that the administration cannot proceed without securing congressional authorization. Construction began last year with the demolition of the historic East Wing. Reports indicate the project, which includes basement complex work, could cost up to $600 million, with initial estimates doubling from $200 million to $400 million, and significant taxpayer funds are reportedly being allocated despite Trump's claims of private financing.

“

This holding 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.