“He’s Not the Owner”: Court Halts Trump’s White House Plan
World
A U.S. court has paused a controversial White House renovation, putting Donald Trump’s construction plans under legal scrutiny.
A U.S. federal court has ordered a temporary halt to the construction of a ballroom in the East Wing of the White House pending the outcome of a lawsuit.
The case was filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argues that Donald Trump exceeded his authority by approving the partial demolition of the building without congressional approval.
Federal Judge Richard Leon, announcing the decision, подчеркнул that the U.S. president is a steward of the White House for future generations, not its owner. He indicated that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in the case.
Trump responded on his Truth Social platform, calling the ruling incorrect and stating that he plans to appeal.
The East Wing, originally built in 1902, was partially demolished in October 2025 as part of the ballroom project. According to officials, the $400 million project is funded entirely by private donors, with no public funds involved.
The case could set an important precedent regarding the preservation of historic sites and the limits of presidential authority over federal property.
The case was filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argues that Donald Trump exceeded his authority by approving the partial demolition of the building without congressional approval.
Federal Judge Richard Leon, announcing the decision, подчеркнул that the U.S. president is a steward of the White House for future generations, not its owner. He indicated that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in the case.
Trump responded on his Truth Social platform, calling the ruling incorrect and stating that he plans to appeal.
The East Wing, originally built in 1902, was partially demolished in October 2025 as part of the ballroom project. According to officials, the $400 million project is funded entirely by private donors, with no public funds involved.
The case could set an important precedent regarding the preservation of historic sites and the limits of presidential authority over federal property.
Powered by Froala Editor