Leon reaffirmed that the project must stop absent congressional authorization and rejected the administration’s argument that national security concerns require it to continue in full.

Calling the government’s interpretation of the original injunction “neither a reasonable nor a correct reading,” Leon added that it was “to say the least, incredible, if not disingenuous” that defendants argued the order did not stop ballroom construction at all. The administration filed a notice of appeal shortly after the ruling.

The April 16 opinion follows an April 11 order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanding the case for clarification. The amended order is set to take effect April 23, with a compliance report due by mid-May.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the lawsuit last December, also filed a conditional cross-appeal April 8 of Leon’s earlier ruling denying a first injunction attempt, preserving its broader legal claims if the appellate court reverses the March 31 order staying vertical construction.

Court Rejects “Integrated Security” Argument

The administration’s core argument—laid out in a declaration from U.S. Secret Service Deputy Director Matthew C. Quinn filed April 13—was that the project is “a single, coherent whole” in which underground national security installations cannot function without the ballroom structure above to cover and protect them.

Quinn stated that planned features, including bullet- and blast-proof glass windows, are integrated throughout and warned that construction delays could allow adversaries to identify vulnerabilities in White House infrastructure.

Leon rejected that reasoning on multiple grounds.

The ballroom’s planned security features remain months, if not years, from installation—a point the appeals court noted, citing the administration’s own acknowledgment that the project won’t be complete for roughly two more years.

Leon also pointed to earlier government representations in the same litigation that below- and above-grade work were “independent of” one another, finding those prior positions directly contradicted the current claim that the project is inseparable.

The National Trust’s April 14 reply brief argued the reversal reflected a troubling lack of candor, noting the government had earlier used representations about the unfinished design to delay a hearing on the initial injunction request.

Leon wrote that national security “is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity,” and said four classified government declarations—reviewed by the court—shed no further light on whether the above-grade ballroom is genuinely necessary.

In a late-day post on Truth Social April 16, Trump argued the ballroom and its underground components function as a unified system, writing that the project is “one big, expensive, and very complex unit” and that below-ground facilities would be ineffective without the structure above. He also raised concerns about worker safety and challenged the court’s treatment of standing in the case.

What Can and Cannot Proceed

The amended order draws a precise construction line. Below-grade work may continue, including development of what the government has described in filings as bunkers, bomb shelters, protective partitioning and military installations.

Limited above-grade work is permitted only to cover and secure those underground elements, with an explicit prohibition on any work that locks in the ballroom’s above-ground size and scale.

Waterproofing, water management, structural reinforcement and resolution of immediate site hazards—including uncovered rebar and exposed cables the Secret Service flagged as risks to personnel—may proceed. Temporary security measures already in place for presidential protection continue under the order.

Vertical construction of the ballroom itself, including framing or structural steel erection, remains prohibited.

---

RELATED

Injunction Stops White House Ballroom at Start of Vertical Construction

---

Procurement and Sequencing Risks Grow

For construction teams, the ruling holds the project at a structurally sensitive transition point. Foundation systems and below-grade concrete are substantially complete, but the prohibition on vertical construction disrupts sequencing between substructure and superstructure—complicating fabrication release, erection scheduling and site logistics on a constrained, high-security campus where staging and access are tightly managed.

The ruling also prolongs exposure to demobilization, remobilization and protection costs for partially completed systems as the project remains stalled at the transition to vertical construction.

Procurement exposure is now an important consideration. Several news outlets have reported that Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal is donating European-produced structural steel for the ballroom. This dependence on imported steel contrasts with federal “Buy American” policies usually applicable to government-funded projects, although these rules might not apply to privately financed projects managed outside federal procurement processes.

The project is estimated at approximately $400 million and is financed entirely by private donations. The White House is managing construction directly through the Office of the Executive Residence rather than a traditional general contractor.

---

RELATED

Judge Rejects Injunction Bid in White House Ballroom Fight

---

A Divided Appeals Court Sets Up the Next Fight

The appeals court’s April 11 order was not unanimous. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao dissented, arguing the government had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on appeal and that the injunction should have been suspended in full. Rao wrote the project is likely authorized under existing federal law governing presidential authority over the White House and that the National Trust may lack standing—an outcome that could end the case without reaching construction merits.

With the administration’s appeal filed April 16 and the clarified injunction set to take effect April 23, the next move belongs to the appellate court—and, if emergency relief is sought, likely the Supreme Court.