Federal Appeals Court Throws a Wrench Into Trump's White House Ballroom Plans

President Trump's plans for a grand White House ballroom just hit another snag on Friday as the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction blocking construction of the proposed addition.

🚨 In a 2-1 vote, the D.C. Circuit blocked President Trump's plan to build a new White House ballroom, ruling the administration likely cannot demolish the East Wing and begin above-ground construction without authorization from Congress. pic.twitter.com/islwZwWsco

— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) August 7, 2026

In a nutshell, the appellate court held that Congress — not the President — controls major structural changes to the White House.

As readers may recall, President Trump announced plans in July 2025 to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom in place of the East Wing. The ballroom was to be funded by private donations rather than taxpayer dollars. The new ballroom was intended to better accommodate large White House functions and to provide added security features. 

But the National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to block the move — after demolition had already begun. D.C. District Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary injunction blocking part of the project — his order halted above-ground construction while allowing work necessary for White House security to continue.

In affirming Leon's injunction, the Court of Appeals maintained that its decision isn't about whether or not a new ballroom is a good idea. Instead, the Court emphasized that:

• The White House belongs to the American people.
• Presidents live there temporarily.
• Congress has long exercised authority over major White House construction projects.
• The Constitution gives Congress broad authority over federal property.
• Congress has repeatedly appropriated money for White House additions, renovations, and repairs throughout history, which the majority viewed as evidence that major White House construction has traditionally required congressional involvement.
• The court found no law giving the President unilateral authority to demolish the East Wing and replace it with a ballroom funded by private donations. 

Again, the majority's decision is not about whether the ballroom is good or bad policy, nor does it hold that the ballroom can never be built. It simply held that, absent congressional authorization, construction cannot proceed while the case is litigated.

The decision was 2-1, with Judges Patricia Millet (Obama) and Brad Garcia (Biden) in the majority, and Judge Neomi Rao (Trump) authoring a 34-page dissent. In her dissent, Rao contends that the injunction gives too little deference to the Executive on national security needs at the White House. Rao would have allowed construction to proceed while the case is being litigated.

Bear in mind, this is not the final say on this issue. The D.C. Circuit stayed its own decision for 14 days to allow the administration to seek Supreme Court review, which it almost certainly will. 

The bottom line here is that, for the appellate court, the dispute here isn't about architecture, but rather who gets to decide. 

Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are hijacking President Trump's agenda and insulting the will of the people.

Help us expose out-of-control judges dead set on halting President Trump's mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.