Debate Over White House Ballroom Construction

Lawyers for the federal government argued in court that work on a White House ballroom should not be halted. They cited the ongoing construction and security issues as reasons to proceed. Attorney Yaakov Roth noted during a discussion with U.S. Appeals Court Judge Patricia Millett that only Congress could stop the $400 million project.

The administration has requested the court’s permission to continue building the ballroom without Congress’s formal approval. This request follows an order from U.S. District Judge Richard Leon on April 16 to halt aboveground construction. Leon, appointed by President George W. Bush, allowed belowground work related to security to continue.

The court’s discussion focused on who can challenge government actions and whether such challenges can override security concerns. Judge Millett questioned when the project became irreversible. Roth responded that an injunction would have been inappropriate from the start of construction.

The case was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation after the White House demolished the East Wing for the ballroom, which could accommodate 999 people. The outcome of the hearing remains uncertain as the judges asked both parties challenging questions.

Plaintiff attorney Tad Heuer argued that construction should pause until Congress is consulted. While standing was a central issue, Heuer noted they did not oppose the underground bunker, only the ballroom above.

Government attorneys emphasized the project’s importance for security. They highlighted features designed to protect against threats like drones and missiles, asserting that the upgrades are vital for the safety of the President and the White House.