A federal appeals court has temporarily halted the construction of a proposed $400 million White House ballroom, ruling that the Trump administration cannot proceed with the project without explicit congressional approval. The decision, issued by a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, found that while the court was not determining the ultimate fate of the ballroom, its construction could not continue during ongoing litigation without the necessary authorization from Congress.
The appeals court’s 2-1 ruling upheld an earlier injunction issued on April 16 by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, which had stopped aboveground construction of the ballroom. Judge Leon’s order, however, permitted underground work on a bunker and other national security facilities to continue, a distinction maintained by the appeals court’s recent decision.
The proposed ballroom is a substantial undertaking, planned to encompass 90,000 square feet (8,400 square meters). It is slated to occupy the site of the White House East Wing, which was demolished in the fall of 2025 to make way for the new structure. The project’s estimated cost is $400 million.
The legal challenge against the construction was initiated by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The organization filed a lawsuit in December 2025, just one week after the demolition of the East Wing was completed. The National Trust argued that the project could not lawfully proceed without specific congressional authorization, a position the appeals court has now affirmed.
The three-judge panel that rendered the decision consisted of Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia, who supported the majority ruling, and Judge Neomi Rao, who dissented. The judicial appointments reflect a cross-section of recent administrations: Judge Millett was nominated by President Barack Obama, Judge Garcia by President Joe Biden, and Judge Rao by President Donald Trump.
Congressional involvement in the project has been contentious. In May, Congress explicitly rejected the administration’s request for $1 billion in funding for the ballroom. Further complicating the financial picture, Democrats stated in June that an estimated $350 million from a recent tax cuts law appeared to have been redirected to White House security initiatives, including components of the ballroom project. This alleged redirection of funds has been a point of significant dispute between the administration and congressional Democrats.
The appeals court has stayed its ruling for 14 days, providing the Trump administration with an opportunity to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. This pause allows for the legal process to continue its course, potentially leading to a final determination by the nation’s highest court regarding the project’s future and the scope of executive authority in federal construction projects.
Why it matters in Greenville
The federal appeals court’s decision underscores the critical role of congressional oversight in the allocation of federal funds and the execution of major government projects. For a city like Greenville, which is home to significant employers such as Prisma Health, Michelin North America, and BMW Manufacturing Co., the principles of fiscal accountability and adherence to legislative appropriations are foundational. While the White House ballroom project is geographically distant, the precedent set by this ruling regarding the separation of powers and the necessity of legislative approval for substantial federal expenditures can influence the broader landscape of federal funding and infrastructure initiatives. This judicial emphasis on checks and balances ensures that federal resources, which often impact local economies through grants, contracts, or regulatory frameworks, are deployed with proper authorization, affecting the long-term stability and predictability of federal engagement with communities across the nation, including in Greenville.
