A federal judge has expressed significant skepticism regarding the Trump administration's legal authority to proceed with renovations to the White House East Wing and fund them through private donations. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, during a hearing on Thursday, questioned the administration's arguments on both fronts.
Legal Challenge and Judicial Scrutiny
Judge Leon pressed an administration lawyer about the president's power to alter a structure he described as "an icon that's a national institution." He characterized the plan to fund the project with private gifts as a "Rube Goldberg contraption" designed to bypass congressional oversight.
The lawsuit challenging the project was filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The organization seeks to halt construction until the project undergoes standard federal review processes and allows for public comment on the proposed changes. The National Trust, a privately funded nonprofit designated by Congress to protect historic sites, requested a preliminary injunction.
Judge Leon stated he would likely issue a decision in February, not in the current month, and anticipates the losing party will appeal.
Project Scope and Funding Controversies
The White House announced the construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom in late July, with demolition beginning on the East Wing in late October. The project's estimated cost has increased from an initial $200 million to $400 million, which the White House plans to fund through private donations.
Judge Leon suggested the administration's plan to privately raise $400 million for the ballroom project appeared to be an "end run" around congressional oversight. He focused on two federal statutes: one requiring express congressional authority for construction on federal public grounds in Washington D.C., and another detailing yearly appropriations for White House maintenance and improvements. He noted that despite Republican control of Congress, the president did not seek legislative approval.
Administration's Defense and Judge's Rebuttal
Justice Department lawyer Yaakov Roth argued that President Trump preferred private funding over taxpayer money, citing historical examples such as the building of a swimming pool during the Gerald Ford administration or a tennis pavilion during Trump's first term, which did not require congressional approval. Judge Leon dismissed these comparisons, stating, "You compare that to ripping down the East Wing? C'mon! Be serious." He found no legislative basis for using the National Park Service's gift authority to fund a $400 million ballroom project.
Procedural and Security Arguments
Roth attempted to argue that the National Trust lacked standing to sue, but Judge Leon quickly dismissed this, indicating the issue could be addressed at the Court of Appeals. Roth also warned that halting construction could damage the existing White House structure and raise security concerns, implying the project included a replacement for an underground bunker. The National Trust clarified it would not object to continued work on security-related components.
Judge Leon concluded the hearing by declining to issue an immediate order, attributing the delay to an upcoming winter storm, and reiterated that a ruling on the preliminary injunction motion would likely be delivered in February.