Appeals court orders judge to revisit security impacts of Trump ballroom halt

Body

A federal appeals court said Saturday that U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon must reconsider how halting construction of President Donald Trump’s planned White House ballroom could affect national security. In returning the case for further clarification, the D.C. Circuit panel said it did not yet have enough information to decide how much of the project could be suspended without jeopardizing the safety of the president, his family, or White House staff.

The ruling came from a three-judge panel that included Patricia Millett, Neomi Rao and Bradley Garcia. The court said Leon’s injunction needed clearer findings about the link between the construction pause and claimed safety and security measures, directing Leon to spell out “whether — and how — his injunction interferes with the administration’s plans for safety and security,” the Associated Press reported.

The appeals court said it extended the enforcement pause that had already been put in place after Leon’s March 31 decision. Leon, in that earlier ruling, barred work from proceeding without congressional approval but suspended enforcement of his order for 14 days. The D.C. Circuit extended that suspension for three more days, to April 17, to give the Trump administration time to ask the Supreme Court for review.

The government had argued that delaying the project would imperil the president and others inside the White House because the effort includes “critical security features.” Government lawyers said the security measures were designed to guard against a range of threats, including drones, ballistic missiles and biohazards, according to the AP account.

In his March ruling, Leon granted a temporary pause while making room for security-related work. He exempted any construction necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House and said he reviewed materials the government submitted privately before concluding that the halt would not jeopardize national security.

The appeals panel’s focus turned to disagreement over what exactly could be paused without creating risk, especially relating to underground security work. The court noted that much of the government’s concern, as presented earlier, had centered on below-ground security work, and it referenced the administration’s argument that those upgrades were “distinct from construction of the ballroom itself and could proceed independently.” The appeals court said the White House now appeared to argue that the security upgrades were “inseparable” from the project overall, making it unclear “whether and to what extent” advancing parts of the ballroom was necessary for safety.

Neomi Rao dissented, citing what she said was a statute that would allow the president to undertake improvements to the White House. In the dissent described by AP, Rao wrote that the government had presented credible evidence of ongoing security vulnerabilities at the White House that would be prolonged by halting construction, adding that those concerns outweighed “generalized aesthetic harms” presented in the lawsuit.

The dispute has centered on a lawsuit brought by a historic preservation group after the White House demolished the East Wing for a ballroom project that the president said would fit 999 people. The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued in December, a week after demolition, and Carol Quillen, the group’s president and CEO, said in a statement that the organization awaited further clarification from the district court.

AP reported that two days after Leon’s March ruling, the ballroom project received final approval from a key agency that President Trump had stocked with allies, while another oversight entity with Trump loyalists had approved the project earlier in the year. The AP account also said the administration has said it is using private donations for the project, but public money would pay for underground bunkers and other security upgrades.

A spokesperson for the National Trust said Quillen’s organization remained committed to “honoring the historic significance of the White House,” advocating for its role as stewards, and demonstrating that “broad consultation, including with the American people, results in a better overall outcome,” while waiting for Leon’s renewed clarification in light of the appeals court’s concerns.