Judge orders Trump to halt White House ballroom construction, escalating legal feud

A U.S. judge on Thursday rebuked the Trump administration's attempt to proceed with construction of its $400 million White House ballroom project, clarifying in a sharply worded order that any above-ground, physical construction of the site is blocked unless deemed strictly necessary for national security purposes.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said his order applies to all above-ground construction of the White House ballroom project, except for actions that are explicitly necessary to protect national security facilities or protecting White House personnel.

Still, he made clear that the exception was not a blank check to proceed for the administration to continue the entire 90,000-square-foot project. "National security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity," Leon said Thursday. 

He also sharply criticized the Justice Department's "brazen" interpretation of the "safety and security" exception he granted in his original order, citing their claim that the entire project is a matter of national security,

Leon described that read as "incredible, if not disingenuous."

APPEALS COURT LETS TRUMP RESUME WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM CONSTRUCTION, SEEKS LOWER COURT CLARITY

Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, had issued a preliminary injunction in March blocking construction of the ballroom in March. 

He concluded then that the Trump administration lacked the legal authority to proceed with building the sprawling White House ballroom without congressional approval, and that the administration had not shown it had clear authorization to replace parts of the East Wing with a privately funded structure.

Lawyers for the Trump administration quickly kicked the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing that completing the 90,000-square-foot project on the site of the demolished East Wing is critical to the safety and security of the "president, his family, and White House staff."

US APPEALS COURT HALTS TRUMP CONTEMPT PROBE ORDERED BY BOASBERG, FOR NOW

Trump first announced plans for the 90,000-square-foot ballroom in July, initially estimating the cost at around $200 million. He has said the project would be funded "100% by me and some friends of mine."

Lawyers for the administration have also pushed back on the lawsuit, arguing the president has authority over White House construction decisions and that past White House expansions, including the East and West Wings, did not require congressional involvement in their design or construction. 

The National Trust, meanwhile, has maintained that the project cannot move forward without complying with federal law and proper review processes.

TRUMP ADMIN FIGHTS IN COURT TO KEEP WHITE HOUSE EAST WING DEMOLITION, $300M BALLROOM BUILD ON TRACK
 

Last week, judges for the three-member D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 to grant the Trump administration's request for a temporary stay, clearing the way for the administration to continue construction on the project for now, or seek emergency relief via the Supreme Court.

But the circuit court also kicked the case back down to Leon to provide additional clarity, due to what judges cited as the need for a more detailed explanation on what types of construction should be blocked. 

Specifically, the judges asked Leon to clarify whether stopping the project would harm national security, as the Trump administration claims.

Leon's amended order Thursday reiterates that any below-ground construction at the site that is tied to national security— such as construction of bunkers, or other protected facilities, may proceed.

The administration is permitted to take all measures necessary to physically secure the site, Leon said, including protecting the White House, and ensuring the safety of the president and his staff.

But he sharply rejected the administration's argument to the appeals court that the entire project falls within the scope of national security efforts outlined above. 

Leon said the government's arguments "are in direct conflict with [their] prior representations."

"In my view, these arguments fail to justify Defendants' extraordinary, if not disingenuous, reading of my preliminary injunction," he added.