A federal judge has halted above-ground construction of President Donald Trump’s controversial White House ballroom project, allowing only underground work to proceed while the administration appeals the decision. The ruling affects the $400 million renovation that has already seen partial demolition of the White House East Wing.

Court Ruling Details

Judge Richard Leon issued a modified order Thursday blocking above-ground construction on the massive ballroom addition to the White House. The judge permitted underground work to continue, including national security facilities beneath the property. Construction work above ground can only proceed if strictly necessary to protect those security installations, and cannot lock in the final size and scale of the controversial ballroom design.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., challenging the ballroom project. The Trump administration immediately appealed Leon’s ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Leon paused his order for seven days before it takes effect, providing a brief window for legal maneuvering.

Presidential Response

President Trump unleashed sharp criticism of the ruling on Truth Social, calling Leon a judge who has undermined national security. Trump characterized the ballroom as a gift to America that would provide presidents and world leaders with secure meeting space, including bomb shelters. He accused the judge of attempting to delay or prevent construction of what he described as essential security infrastructure for future administrations.

Historic Preservation Concerns

The ballroom represents one of several architectural projects Trump has launched during his second term to reshape federal properties according to his aesthetic preferences. Photographs from November 2025 showed significant demolition of the White House East Wing already underway. Historic preservation advocates argue the project threatens the integrity of one of America’s most significant landmarks. The case highlights ongoing tension between presidential authority over federal properties and constitutional protections for historic sites.