"National Security Threat": Trump to challenge court ruling blocking White House ballroom construction
Washington DC, August 8
US President Donald Trump described a federal appeals court ruling blocking the construction of a new White House ballroom as a "National Security Threat" and a "National disgrace", saying his administration would immediately challenge the decision before the US Supreme Court.
In a post on Truth Social on Friday (local time), Trump criticised the ruling delivered by a divided federal appeals court, which held that construction of the proposed ballroom requires congressional approval.
"Two Judges, one appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, the other by Sleepy Joe Biden, said in a ruling on the desperately needed SECURE Ballroom/Military Complex, including a major DronePort on the roof, that 'Each President is a temporary tenant...of the White House.' We are not tenants... we are PRESIDENTS, elected by the people of the United States of America, and have many rights, including the right to fix, renovate, secure, protect, and beautify the White House grounds," Trump wrote.
Describing the ruling as a threat to national security, he added, "This decision, made after much of the work has been done and paid for, is a National Security Threat at the highest level. It is also a National Disgrace."
According to CNN, a divided US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that the Trump administration could not proceed with the massive ballroom project without congressional approval.
"Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help," the appeals court said, according to CNN.
The court stayed implementation of its ruling for two weeks, giving Trump time to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Trump confirmed that his administration would challenge the ruling.
"We will be immediately appealing to the United States Supreme Court," he wrote on Truth Social, calling on the nation's highest court to overturn the decision "in its entirety."
According to CNN, the majority held that Congress had not granted the Executive Branch unrestricted authority to redesign and reconstruct the White House. Judges Patricia Millett and Brad Garcia formed the majority, while Judge Neomi Rao dissented.
The case stems from Trump's decision to replace the East Wing with an approximately 89,000-square-foot ballroom. According to CNN, the appeals court ruled that while work on the underground security bunker may continue, above-ground ballroom construction cannot proceed without congressional authorisation.
— ANI
Reader Comments
The audacity to call himself "not a tenant" is something else. As an Indian, I find this absolutely fascinating. Our PMs live in bungalows and follow rules. Here, the "most powerful man" throwing a tantrum over a ballroom is just bizarre. The separation of powers is a beautiful thing - glad the courts are standing up to this nonsense.
Honestly, if this happened in India, the Supreme Court would've slapped the government with a contempt notice. The man is literally rewriting the Constitution to build a party hall. And the irony - he's calling it a "military complex" when it's clearly a ballroom. We need more leaders like this - respect for institutions matters!
I get it - Trump wants to leave his mark on the White House. But calling a ballroom a "national security threat" is the most Trump thing ever. As someone who follows global politics from Mumbai, I just wonder - what would the Founders think? They'd be rolling in their graves watching this circus.
While we're debating fuel prices and GST in India, the US President is fighting for a ballroom and drone port. Tale of two democracies! 🙃 But on a serious note, this shows how important checks and balances are. No matter who's in power, they need to follow the law. Good on the appeals court for standing firm.
This is pure entitlement. He calls it a "secure ballroom/military complex" but we all know it's just a fancy party space. And the way he dismisses the judges by saying "one appointed by Obama, one by
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.