Supreme Court to weigh Trump’s authority to build White House ballroom

The Supreme Court of the United States has until Friday to decide whether President Donald Trump may continue construction on his 1-year-old undertaking, the White House State Ballroom.

So far, the project has encountered legal hurdles and public critique—with one specific question at the center: What is Congress’ role in White House renovations?

“Congress has the power of the purse,” said Claire Finkelstein, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. “But they also have oversight over the power of the current occupant of the White House, which is a temporary matter, to dramatically change the footprints of the building and the grounds.”

What the Supreme Court must decide is how far that oversight extends. The White House, nicknamed the People’s House, sits on federally owned land that the National Parks Service stewards. Because of this, Trump’s project has entered a web of legal questions regarding congressional jurisdiction. Trump did not wait for formal approval from Congress, so, with the project already months underway, the high court will now choose whether construction can proceed.

On Aug. 14, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court to pause a preliminary injunction by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and allow Trump’s project to continue. Days earlier, on Aug. 7, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 to uphold a federal judge’s April order that sought to halt above-ground ballroom construction until Congress authorizes it.

In his 45-page petition, the solicitor general wrote that the project is beyond the point of return, as far as major changes go. He detailed a 70-foot-high concrete-and-steel superstructure and included photos of the unfinished site in separate filings to the Supreme Court. The attachments contained renderings of the planned ballroom, a neoclassical-style hall with gold adornments, crystal chandeliers, and a heavily fortified drone port on the proposed ballroom roof. Not pictured were plans to update the current East Wing underground bunker with medical facilities, bomb shelters, and more—construction not covered by the D.C. Circuit’s injunction.

When Trump announced the initial plan for the ballroom, he said that a combination of private donors and federal funds from the Secret Service would supply the $200 million needed for the structure. Now, the project has reportedly tripled in cost, with additional taxpayer funding beyond the Secret Service’s budget.

Finkelstein said that Trump appears to operate on the principle of “do first and seek permission later” and seemingly acknowledges no constraints on the project.

Newly confirmed Attorney General Todd Blanche evidently agrees. On Fox News Sunday this week, Blanche told reporter Shannon Bream that Congress had already given the president the authority to build the ballroom.

Several Republican members of Congress concur. In April, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., introduced the TRUMP Ballroom Act, which would give the president congressional authorization to design and construct a ballroom facility on the grounds of the White House, “notwithstanding any other provision of law.”

In a statement announcing the legislation on April 28, Boebert wrote, “While I don’t see any reason Congressional approval for this ballroom should be required, activist judges and leftist dogwalkers have inserted themselves into this renovation at the White House. As a result, I’m proud to introduce the TRUMP Ballroom Act so that we can get this project over the finish line.”

The late Sen. Linsdey Graham, R-S.C., had also pushed for ballroom-related legislation, introducing the White House Safety and Security Act of 2026 on April 29. The bill outlined $400 million for the project. But despite the proposals, Republicans were unable to get official authorization over the finish line before Congress’ August recess. Even an attempt to add ballroom funding to a filibuster-proof bill failed.

Some Democrats in Congress have spoken their mind on the matter. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., recognized that the White House is exempt from Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act—which would otherwise require the president to submit any proposed White House renovation for formal review and public comment. While this does not address the question of congressional approval, Raskin proposed legislation that would seek to remove this exemption and introduce an additional hurdle for White House projects.

“The future of [Trump’s] Marie Antoinette ballroom is in the hands of his packed-and-stacked Supreme Court,” Raskin wrote in an emailed statement to me. “By passing The People’s White House Historic Preservation Act, we can establish a public review process that puts the power back in the hands of the people and protects the house we built for future generations."

According to a report by Stewart McLaurin, president of the White House Historical Association, Trump is not the first president to stir up controversy with White House construction. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to update the East Wing of the White House as a space for additional staff, social functions, and an underground shelter for wartime security. Congressional Republicans called the expenditure wasteful, and some accused Roosevelt of attempting to bolster his administration’s image, wrote McLaurin.

Trump first announced his plans for a 90,000-square-foot expansion of the East Wing’s hosting capacity in July 2025. Originally, the president spoke of the project as creating a space for functions honoring world leaders, but now his administration calls it an issue of national security. Trump has said the building would be “drone-proof.”

“Yes, it is a ballroom, but it is also a meaningful upgrade and a necessary part of the security of this city and the security of the president and his family,” Blanche told Bream on Sunday. “So it’s not just about a place for world leaders to come and have dinner.”

Robert Rowland, a professor of rhetoric at the University of Kansas, said Trump “seems to be going to the security rationale in the hope that it will hold up in court.”

But despite the change in rhetoric, as of Thursday, the legal hurdles remain.

The D.C. Circuit judges delivering the Aug. 7 opinion argued that the Constitution assigns Congress responsibility to approve proposed changes to the physical design of the White House, “even where those changes are said to serve security interests.”

“We are aware of no instance in American history in which a President unilaterally and using privately collected funds demolished substantial portions of the White House that Congress authorized to be built and American taxpayers paid for,” the judges wrote. “Until now.”

McLaurin’s report noted that Roosevelt’s once-controversial East Wing updates eventually proved their utility. Trump likely hopes his ballroom will do the same. But Republicans still have midterms to deal with, and they will face voters who may have varied views about the White House remodeling.

“I think the ballroom … Democrats will pitch it as corruption and incompetence,” said Rowland. “The ballroom is not popular, it seems like, to the American people … so I think what Republicans want to do is talk about it as little as possible.”

In July, Gallup’s Economic Confidence Index found that Americans remain broadly pessimistic about the economy. Rowland says this presents a problem for Trump. “I think President Trump and Republicans are going to have an awful lot of trouble dealing with the economic realities,” he said.

While the Supreme Court decision is still pending, Trump seems to remain confident in his project, which the solicitor general says is already 65% complete.

“We’re in a different position, and the administration is in a different position than before there were any judicial decisions on this matter,” said Finkelstein. “The president made the decision to destroy the East Wing without checking with Congress. … What’s to prevent a president in the future from taking down the entire White House and putting a skyscraper there instead?”