Trust warns White House ballroom already fixed before federal review

The National Trust for Historic Preservation told a federal judge Monday that construction already underway at the White House has set the size and shape of a planned ballroom before the required federal review. The group said this makes any future oversight an “empty exercise.”

The new filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia come after the Justice Department recently asked the court to allow construction to continue during ongoing legal challenges. In its Monday submissions, the National Trust argued that the case is now about more than just timing.

The trust asked the court to stop all construction related to the ballroom. It requested a preliminary injunction to pause demolition and site work until the project completes environmental review, planning commission approval, and gets authorization from Congress.

The filings include an amended complaint, a supplemental brief supporting the request for a preliminary injunction, expert declarations, and a proposed court order. All of these were submitted by the National Trust. The Trump administration has not yet responded to the new materials.

“With respect to the proposed White House ballroom, once the foundation and related subsurface work are in place, the location, bulk, spans, bay sizes, and floor plate geometry…of the building itself are fixed for all practical purposes,” architect William J. Bates wrote in a sworn declaration filed Monday.

Bates, a registered architect and former national president of the American Institute of Architects, said that changing these conditions later would require “major demolition and redesign.”

The trust’s filings claim that the federal government finished the required Environmental Assessment for the project months ago but did not share it with the public while construction continued.

The National Park Service finished the assessment in August but “unlawfully” did not release it until December 15, the trust said. By then, the lawsuit had already been filed and the White House East Wing had already been demolished.

The trust argued that by delaying the release, the public lost its chance to participate in decision-making before irreversible steps were taken.

The filings said construction continued even though the required oversight bodies were inactive or unavailable. The Commission of Fine Arts, which advises on federal building designs in Washington, currently has no sitting members. The National Capital Planning Commission has not reviewed or approved the ballroom’s plans.

In its supplemental brief, the trust said that during a December 16 court hearing, government lawyers explained the project is now led by the Executive Office of the President and the Office of the Executive Residence, instead of the National Park Service, which usually oversees construction in President’s Park.

The trust argued that this change puts the project outside the usual legal process for federal development in Washington, D.C.

Congress has not approved the project, even though the trust says there is a long history of legislative approval for major changes to the White House complex. The trust argued that the Constitution’s Property Clause gives Congress, not the president, authority over federal property, supporting its claim that legislative approval is needed.

“Congress authorized almost every project—and every major project—constructing or modifying the White House or structures on its grounds,” the Trust wrote, describing only narrow exceptions for small, ancillary structures.

The trust compared the proposed 90,000-square-foot ballroom to two exceptions: a small pool and cabana built in 1975, and a tennis pavilion built during President Barack Obama’s administration. The trust described these as “comparatively de minimis” projects.

Trump administration officials had pointed to the Obama-era tennis pavilion to argue that the White House can proceed with construction on its grounds without new congressional approval.

The trust argued that the proposed ballroom is not a minor or temporary project, but a permanent replacement for the East Wing that cannot legally move forward without clear approval from Congress.

Along with its legal arguments, the trust submitted a proposed court order to stop all further construction related to the ballroom. The order would ban demolition, excavation, pile driving, foundation work, and utility installation. Only limited work needed for safety or security would be allowed, and only with court approval.

The trust said the injunction would stay in effect until the project finishes environmental review, gets approval from federal planning bodies, and is authorized by Congress.

The trust’s filings noted that just before a court-ordered deadline to respond to the injunction request, government lawyers brought up possible national security concerns.

Government lawyers warned that halting construction could create national security concerns and said they might give the judge classified information. The trust argued that the government has not explained how pausing work, rather than the whole project, would threaten security.

The trust argues the case will decide whether the ballroom is stopped or if the review process is rendered irrelevant at one of the nation’s most symbolically charged sites.

“Finalizing and constructing a foundation before completing the building design inevitably will constrain if not eliminate the flexibility to modify elements of the building design,” Bates wrote, warning that once subsurface work is complete, meaningful changes may no longer be feasible.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon has not yet ruled on the trust’s request for a preliminary injunction. If granted, the order would pause construction at the former East Wing site while federal agencies review approvals that the trust said should have happened before demolition.

The Trump administration has not yet filed a response to the trust’s latest submissions.

“Absent injunctive relief, Defendants’ ongoing construction activities will irreparably impair the Court’s ability to provide meaningful relief. Once construction progresses beyond the current stage, no subsequent review process can undo the physical and legal consequences of Defendants’ actions.”

 Stories like this take time, documents and a commitment to public transparency. Please support independent arts journalism by subscribing to Urgent Matter and supporting our work directly.