A federal appeals court on Saturday granted a temporary reprieve for the controversial construction of a new ballroom at the White House, allowing work on the project to continue for now despite an earlier judicial halt.
In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit paused a preliminary injunction that had stopped construction late last month. The pause will remain in effect until April 17, giving the court additional time to review key legal and security questions tied to the project.
The dispute centers on a $400 million ballroom initiative backed by President Donald Trump. Supporters of the project argue that the structure is not only a functional expansion of the White House complex but also a necessary upgrade tied to national security considerations. Opponents, including preservation advocates, contend that the project may violate legal requirements and alter the historic character of the presidential residence without proper authorization.
The appellate panel indicated that the current record does not provide enough clarity to determine whether the lower court’s injunction adequately accounts for safety and security concerns raised by the administration. As a result, the panel sent the matter back to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Richard Leon, instructing him to clarify how his order addresses those concerns while litigation continues.
Central to the administration’s argument is the claim that leaving the ballroom unfinished could pose security risks to the White House and its occupants. Officials have maintained that the structure’s design integrates protective features intended to strengthen the overall security posture of the executive residence. They argue that halting construction midstream could expose vulnerabilities rather than mitigate them.
Preservation groups, led by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, have challenged those claims. Their legal filings assert that the injunction does not interfere with underground security enhancements described by the government and that their opposition is focused specifically on the above-ground ballroom. They also argue that congressional approval is required before such a major alteration to the White House can proceed.
Judge Neomi Rao dissented from the majority decision, taking a more forceful stance in favor of the administration. She questioned whether the preservation group has the legal standing to challenge the project at all and emphasized the president’s authority over modifications to the White House. In her view, the government presented credible evidence that stopping construction would prolong existing security concerns.
The project has also drawn attention from local planning authorities. The National Capital Planning Commission approved the ballroom’s construction following the initial injunction, citing historical precedent for renovations and expansions carried out by previous administrations.
However, not all officials are aligned. Phil Mendelson cast the lone dissenting vote within the commission, raising concerns about the scale of the project and suggesting that the proposal has evolved since its initial presentation. He argued that future modifications to the White House complex should be reviewed comprehensively rather than in isolated stages.
