National Trust sues Trump over White House ballroom project
by New York Times · Star-AdvertiserDOUG MILLS / THE NEW YORK TIMES
A view of the White House and a construction site where the East Wing once stood on Monday. The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a federal lawsuit today to block President Donald Trump’s construction of a large new ballroom on White House grounds, arguing that he violated at least four laws in bypassing any review process.
WASHINGTON >> The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a federal lawsuit today to block President Donald Trump’s construction of a large new ballroom on White House grounds, arguing that he violated at least four laws in bypassing any review process.
The lawsuit seeks to force Trump to submit his plans for a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom to several bodies and Congress for public review and input before he can further proceed on the project. The White House’s East Wing has been demolished to make way for the ballroom, and Trump has said work is audible through the night.
“No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever — not President Trump, not President Biden, and not anyone else,” the suit states. “And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in.”
The White House has maintained that the grounds are exempt from the National Historical Preservation Act, but lawyers for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, an organization chartered by Congress to preserve America’s historic buildings, argue that Trump is violating other sections of the U.S. Code.
The suit points to a section of federal law that states, “A building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park or public grounds of the federal government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.”
The suit argues that the way Trump has proceeded with the project has also violated the National Capital Planning Act, the law governing the Commission of Fine Arts, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with breaking news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
Email Sign Up
By clicking to sign up, you agree to Star-Advertiser's and Google's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. This form is protected by reCAPTCHA.
The suit argues that Trump was required to submit plans to the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts and Congress before demolishing the East Wing. And it says he must follow the legal process before continuing any work on the property.
Trump surprised many in October when he abruptly tore down one side of the White House, demolishing the entire East Wing to make way for his 90,000-square-foot ballroom. Trump has told people working on the project that he does not need to follow permitting, zoning or code requirements because the structure is on White House grounds and he has the final say.
A White House spokesperson said in a statement that Trump had the authority to make changes on the property as he saw fit.
“President Trump has full legal authority to modernize, renovate and beautify the White House — just like all of his predecessors did,” spokesperson Davis Ingle said.
The suit argues that Trump’s conduct around the ballroom project is out of step with tradition and even actions he took during his first term, when his administration sought approval for new fencing and a new tennis pavilion.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation took several steps before filing the suit, including writing a letter to the administration that urged a pause in the demolition of the East Wing until plans for the proposed ballroom went through a public review process.
But the National Trust received no response to its letter.
“It wasn’t step one,” Carol Quillen, president of the National Trust, said of the decision to sue. “It was our last option. Construction appears to be ongoing. What is happening now at the White House could foreclose a meaningful review. It could determine in advance of the review what the project footprint is, making the review moot. So we felt we had no choice.”
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
© 2025 The New York Times Company
See more:National news
20 Comments
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the Terms of Service. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. Report comments if you believe they do not follow our guidelines. Having trouble with comments? Learn more here.
Please log in to comment