DOJ asks Supreme Court to lift Trump ballroom ban

The United States Supreme Court has been asked by the Department of Justice to lift a lower court injunction that halted construction of President Donald Trump's $400 million ballroom at the White House, a move the DOJ says is essential for national security. The request came on Friday after a federal appeals court ordered the construction to stop unless Congress approved the project, and the DOJ filed a brief arguing that the ballroom is needed to protect the executive branch from threats. The court’s decision could allow work to resume on the East Wing’s new 90,000‑square‑foot space, a project that has drawn sharp criticism from preservationists and lawmakers.

The injunction was issued by District Court Judge Richard Leon in April and reaffirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on August 7. The appeals panel ruled that the ballroom, which would change the visible character of the White House, is a matter for Congress, not the executive, and set a deadline of August 21 to halt construction. The injunction was temporarily stayed for 14 days to give the DOJ time to appeal to the Supreme Court. The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit in December after the administration removed the East Wing’s historic roof and began work on the new ballroom. Trump has repeatedly defied court orders, insisting that construction must continue and that the project will be funded by private donations, although the cost has risen sharply for taxpayers.

In its brief, the DOJ described the ballroom as a “totally secure space” with bomb shelters, medical facilities, and protection from drones and missiles, arguing that the structure is vital after a series of failed assassination attempts. Trump has framed the project as a necessary upgrade to the White House’s security infrastructure, while critics say it is part of a broader effort to remodel Washington in his image, including plans for a massive triumphal arch. The lawsuit and injunction highlight the tension between executive ambitions and historic preservation, as well as the limits of presidential power over the capital’s architecture.

The Supreme Court will decide whether to grant the DOJ’s request for a stay of the injunction, a decision that could set precedent for future executive construction projects on federal property. If the court allows the project to proceed, construction could resume before the August 21 deadline, potentially sparking further legal challenges. The case underscores the ongoing debate over presidential authority, national security, and the stewardship of the nation’s historic sites.