A federal judge has cleared the way for construction of President Donald Trump’s planned White House ballroom, rejecting a lawsuit from the National Trust for Historic Preservation on procedural grounds rather than the merits.
That distinction matters. The court did not bless or condemn the project’s substance. It ruled that the plaintiffs chose the wrong legal vehicle to try to stop it.
According to the Washington Examiner, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled against the National Trust after concluding the plaintiffs wrongly invoked the Administrative Procedure Act. The judge found the Administrative Procedure Act applies only to agencies, and the White House is not an agency.
Even while ruling against the lawsuit, Leon left the door open for the plaintiffs to try again. He invited them to amend their complaint, and the plaintiffs agreed to do so.
Leon wrote:
"If Plaintiff is inclined to amend its complaint ... the Court will expeditiously consider it and, if viable, address the merits of the novel and weighty issues presented."
So the fight is not necessarily over. But for now, the attempt to freeze the project failed where it often fails in Washington: the procedural rules still apply, even when the cultural gatekeepers are unhappy.
Trump announced the 90,000-square-foot ballroom in late July. The project has been described as one of the most ambitious construction efforts of his second term.
The estimated cost has moved. The original estimate was roughly $200 million. The updated estimate is between roughly $250 million and $300 million.
In the course of moving forward, the old East Wing facade has been destroyed. The article also describes Trump as having ordered or overseen the destruction of the old East Wing to construct the ballroom.
Department of Justice lawyers, representing the defendants, argued that the funding approach is lawful. In a filing dated Feb. 2, DOJ framed the financing as a mechanism Congress has long known exists for projects on White House grounds.
The DOJ wrote:
"This is not a circumvention of the appropriations process—it is a funding mechanism that Congress knowingly authorized and has long been aware is available to support projects on White House grounds."
This is the part that undercuts the performative outrage. If Congress knowingly authorized the mechanism and has long been aware of it, then the proper battlefield is not a lawsuit built on a misapplied statute. It is Congress doing its job, openly, honestly, and on the record.
DOJ also argued that pausing construction would pose a national security threat due to dangers posed to the president, because the old facade had been destroyed, but construction was not complete.
Whatever one thinks of Washington’s constant litigation culture, the point lands with ordinary clarity: if you rip up a sensitive site and leave it half-finished, “pause” is not a neutral option. It becomes its own risk.
The National Capital Planning Commission is set to review the ballroom in March. The source describes the commission as “filled with Trump allies.”
That label is doing a lot of work, and it is a familiar one. When the left cannot win an argument on process or law, it tries to delegitimize the people doing the process and enforcing the law. The goal is to make every normal act of governance sound like corruption simply because the wrong team is in charge.
Former President Joe Biden criticized the construction in a November speech, turning a building project into a morality play about the country’s future.
Biden said:
"I knew Trump was going to taking a wrecking ball to the country, but I had no idea, I have to admit, I didn't know there was going to be an actual wrecking ball."
He continued:
"It's a perfect symbol of his presidency. Trump has taken a wrecking ball not only to the people's house but to the Constitution, to the rule of law, to our very democracy."
But the court fight described here is not about “our very democracy.” It is about which statute applies, what Congress authorized, and whether plaintiffs can frame a viable complaint. That is not poetic. It is how the system is supposed to work when politics gets loud, and the law stays specific.
The preservation group can revise its strategy, and the judge explicitly invited that. The commission still has a review ahead. This story is still moving.
For now, though, one fact stands: a federal judge rejected an attempt to halt the project because the plaintiffs tried to use the Administrative Procedure Act against an entity the judge found is not an agency. In a city that increasingly treats lawsuits as a substitute for elections and legislation, that is a necessary reminder that process is not optional.
And the construction keeps going.