150 Democrats Urge Court to Halt $400 Million East Wing Project as Appeal Hearing Nears
Updated
Updated · CBS New York · May 28
150 Democrats Urge Court to Halt $400 Million East Wing Project as Appeal Hearing Nears
2 articles · Updated · CBS New York · May 28
Roughly 150 Democratic lawmakers told an appeals court Thursday that the Trump administration cannot keep demolishing and rebuilding the White House East Wing without explicit congressional authorization and funding.
Their brief says Congress controls federal property and that the administration cannot treat a routine-repairs statute — backed by only about $2.5 million in appropriations — as authority for a privately funded $400 million overhaul.
The filing lands after a federal judge in March blocked construction until Congress approved it, but an appellate panel temporarily let work continue and is set to hear arguments next week.
Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, has argued the project — including a ballroom, kitchen space and secure facilities — is urgent for national security after recent security incidents near the White House.
Other amici this week, including ethics groups and preservationists, warned the ballroom plan risks donor conflicts of interest and unlawful destruction of historic federal property.
Where does a president's authority to renovate end and the laws protecting a national landmark begin?
With toxic rubble now in a public park, what are the renovation's hidden costs for Washington D.C. residents?
The $1 Billion White House East Wing Ballroom: Legal Battles, Private Funding, and the Fight Over Presidential Power
Overview
The White House East Wing Ballroom project, launched by President Trump, has sparked a major legal and political battle. Critics call it an illegal vanity project, arguing the administration is bypassing federal laws and congressional oversight, especially by using private funding. Despite lawsuits and rising costs, construction has moved forward, with visible progress as of mid-2026. The controversy centers on executive authority, historic preservation, and the risk of donor influence. An upcoming appeals court decision could set important precedents for how federal projects are approved and funded, shaping future debates on presidential power and government accountability.