Trump White House Ballroom Project To Be Halted? Preservationists Move US Court Amid Mass Criticism

(MENAFN- Live Mint) A group of preservationists on Friday sued US President Donald Trump, asking him to pause his controversial White House ballroom project till the time multiple independent reviews are conducted and the Congress gives an approval.

Privately funded group National Trust for Historic Preservation has asked the US District Court in a lawsuit to block Donald Trump's plan to add the White House ballroom, until a thorough design review, environmental evaluation, public comments, congressional debate and ratification are completed.

The building of Trump White House Ballroom has already seen the East Wing of the historical building being razed. The White House ballroom project has prompted criticism in the historic preservation and architectural communities, and among his political adversaries.

Also Read | Democrats introduce bill limiting donations to Trump's White House ballroom What does the lawsuit state?

The lawsuit is the most tangible effort thus far to alter or stop the president's plans for an addition that itself would be nearly twice the size of the White House before the East Wing's demolition.

Also Read | Calibri cancelled? Inside Trump's decision to bring back Times New Roman

“No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever - not President Trump, not President Biden, and not anyone else,” the lawsuit states.“And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in.”

Additionally, the Trust wants the court to declare that Trump, by fast-tracking the project, has committed multiple violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, while also exceeding his constitutional authority by not consulting lawmakers.

No more work should be done, the Trust argues, until administration officials“complete the required reviews - reviews that should have taken place before the Defendants demolished the East Wing, and before they began construction of the Ballroom.”

White House comments

White House maintains that Trump has 'full legal authority' over the building

Asked questions about the lawsuit, White House spokesman David Ingle responded with a blanket assertion that Trump is within his“full legal authority to modernize, renovate and beautify the White House - just like all of his predecessors did.”

Ingle did not specifically address an Associated Press question asking whether the president would consult Congress at any point.

Also Read | White House pulls video after Sabrina Carpenter slams song use in ICE footage

The White House response correctly notes that essentially every president makes some changes to the White House. But Trump's efforts are the most sweeping since a nearly complete gutting of the decaying interior of the oldest portion of the mansion during President Harry Truman's tenure. Truman sought and received explicit authorization from Congress, along with appropriations. Further, he consulted the American Society of Engineers and the Commission on Fine Arts, and he appointed a bipartisan commission to oversee the project.

Trump, a Republican, has emphasized since announcing the project that he's doing it with private money, including his own. But that would not necessarily change how federal laws and procedures apply to what is still a U.S. government project.

The president already has bypassed the federal government's usual building practices and historical reviews with the East Wing demolition. He recently added another architectural firm to the project.

Trump has long said a White House ballroom is overdue, complaining that events were held outside under a tent because the East Room and the State Dining Room could not accommodate bigger crowds. Trump, among other complaints, said guests get their feet wet if it rains during such events.

The White House is expected to submit plans for Trump's new ballroom to a federal planning commission before the year ends, about three months after construction began.

Will Scharf, who was named by Trump as chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, said at the panel's monthly meeting last week that he was told by colleagues at the White House that the long-awaited plans would be filed in December.

“Once plans are submitted, that's really when the role of this commission, and its professional staff, will begin,” said Scharf, who also is one of the Republican president's top White House aides.

He said the review process would happen at a“normal and deliberative pace.”

Besides being too late, the Trust argues, that's not nearly enough.

Federal law cites 'express authority of Congress' over D.C. projects

The Trust asserts that plans should have been submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts and Congress before any action. The lawsuit notes that the Trust wrote to those entities and the National Park Service on Oct. 21, after East Wing demolition began, urging a stop to the project and asking the administration to comply with federal law.

“The National Trust received no response,” the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit cites a litany of federal statutes and rules detailing the role the planning and fine arts commission and lawmakers play in U.S. government construction projects.

Among them is a statute:“A building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress."

The Trust notes also that the range design and environmental reviews, along with congressional deliberation, would involve public input.

“This public involvement, while important in all preservation matters, is particularly critical here, where the structure at issue is perhaps the most recognizable and historically significant building in the country,” the complaint says.

Besides the president, the lawsuit names as defendants the National Parks Service, the Department of the Interior, and the General Services Administration, along with leaders of those federal agencies.

Key Takeaways

• The lawsuit emphasizes the need for public input and compliance with federal laws before making changes to significant national landmarks.
• Historical preservation groups are actively challenging actions they deem unlawful, signaling a potential shift in how presidential projects are scrutinized.
• This case highlights the tension between presidential authority and the legislative process concerning public property.

MENAFN12122025007365015876ID1110474584