Coverage spread: 2 sources — 2 left
Lean ratings via AllSides / Media Bias-Fact-Check. How this works.
Where they agree
- A divided D.C. Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that the Trump administration cannot proceed with building the ballroom without congressional authorization.
- The majority opinion, written by Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia, held that only Congress controls changes to White House property, not the president.
- Trump appointee Judge Neomi Rao dissented, saying the lower court overreached and the plaintiff lacked standing.
- The ruling was stayed for 14 days to let the administration appeal, and Trump said he would take the case to the Supreme Court.
Where they differ
- NBC News specifies that the injunction still allows below-ground construction work to continue, a detail CBS News’ text does not emphasize.
- NBC News includes more detail from District Judge Richard Leon’s own frustration with the administration’s attempt to stretch the “safety-and-security exception” to cover the entire project.
- CBS News includes Trump’s direct Truth Social reaction calling the ruling “horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful,” which is not featured in the NBC excerpt.
- CBS News highlights the National Trust for Historic Preservation as the plaintiff and details Rao’s standing argument more explicitly than NBC’s excerpt.
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Trump White House lacks authority to build a new $400 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the site of the demolished East Wing without congressional approval. President Trump immediately said he would appeal to the Supreme Court, calling the decision “horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful.”
What did the court actually rule?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 2-1 to uphold a lower court’s modified preliminary injunction that halts the ballroom’s construction while allowing below-ground work to continue. The majority, Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia, wrote that the Constitution gives Congress — not the president — “full constitutional control over federal property and the funding of its maintenance and development,” and found no express or implied legal authority letting Trump build the ballroom on his own. Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the underlying lawsuit, lacked standing and accusing the district court of “judicial overreach.”
The panel stayed its own ruling for 14 days, giving the administration a window to take the case to the Supreme Court before the block fully takes effect.
What exactly happened to the East Wing?
According to the ruling, over three days in October 2025 the administration demolished the entire East Wing to make way for the ballroom, without the consultations it had promised or permission from Congress. The project is being funded with private money rather than taxpayer dollars, and the White House has argued parts of it fall under a safety-and-security exception that lets some work proceed without congressional sign-off.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who issued the original order being appealed, had allowed limited aspects of construction to move forward but pushed back when the administration tried to stretch the security exception to cover the whole project. The appeals court noted it could find no precedent in American history for a president unilaterally using privately raised funds to demolish a substantial part of the White House that Congress had authorized and taxpayers had paid for.
Does this mean the ballroom will never be built?
Not necessarily. The majority opinion explicitly said the ruling “does not even necessarily mean” the administration can never build the ballroom — only that it cannot do so while the underlying lawsuit is being litigated without Congress’s authorization. The judges stressed their decision is not a judgment on whether the ballroom is a good idea, only on who has the legal power to approve it.
What happens next?
Trump said on Truth Social the administration would immediately appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing the ruling should be overturned “in its entirety.” Because the appeals court stayed its decision for two weeks, construction on the above-ground ballroom structure remains blocked for now, though below-ground work can continue. The case now heads toward the Supreme Court, where justices will have to weigh in on the scope of presidential authority over changes to the White House itself.
Why does this dispute matter beyond one construction project?
The case tests a broader constitutional question about who controls federal property tied to the presidency. The appeals court framed the White House as an institution held in trust for the country — belonging to “all Presidents, current and future, and…the American people” — rather than personal property of whoever currently occupies the office. A Supreme Court ruling could set a lasting precedent on how much unilateral power a sitting president has to alter the physical structure of the White House, regardless of funding source.
Sources
- CBS News — Appeals court blocks Trump’s White House ballroom, teeing up Supreme Court fight · Appeals court blocks construction of Trump’s White House ballroom
- NBC News
Featured photo: APK via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)