A federal appeals court has ordered the Trump administration to stop construction on a $400 million ballroom at the site of the White House's demolished East Wing, marking a significant legal setback for former President Donald Trump.

The Washington-based US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling on Friday, August 7, 2026, stating that "Each President is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House," and cannot fundamentally reshape it without congressional approval. The court upheld a preliminary injunction won by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which had sued after the administration tore down the East Wing and began building an 8,360-square-metre ballroom without seeking authorization from Congress.

The appeals court paused its ruling for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

The White House stated that private donations, including contributions from Donald Trump himself, would fund the ballroom project. Trump announced on Truth Social that the administration would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

National Trust President Brent Leggs called the ruling "a great day for our country and for the American people's right to voice their opinions about the historic places they cherish, including the White House."

During court arguments on June 5, Justice Department attorney Yaakov Roth argued that the courts should not intervene in the privately funded project. The administration claimed that the former East Wing's removal left the president and others vulnerable to attack, emphasizing national security concerns over the National Trust's architectural objections.

The majority opinion, delivered by Democratic-appointed Circuit Judges Patricia Millett and Brad Garcia, clarified that the injunction does not permanently bar construction but halts above-ground work until Congress grants approval. In dissent, Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, appointed by Trump, argued that the injunction exceeded the federal courts' authority and that construction should continue.

The case tests the limits of presidential authority over the White House's structure and highlights the role of Congress in approving significant modifications.

Sources