A divided federal appeals court has ordered President Trump to halt construction on his planned White House ballroom, ruling that only Congress can authorize major changes to the executive mansion, a decision Trump called "horrendous" and vowed to fight at the Supreme Court.

Two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit sided with the National Trust for Historic Preservation on Friday, upholding a lower court's injunction that blocks above-ground work on the 90,000-square-foot project. The majority opinion, written by Obama appointee Patricia Millet and Biden appointee Bradley Garcia, held that the Constitution's Property Clause gives Congress, not the president, final say over what gets built or torn down at the White House. A Trump-appointed judge, Neomi Rao, dissented sharply.

The ruling lands at the center of a months-long legal fight that began after workers bulldozed portions of the East Wing late last year to make way for the new structure. The National Trust sued in December, arguing that neither Trump nor the National Park Service had authority to demolish historic portions of the White House or begin construction without congressional sign-off.

Two Obama and Biden appointees overrule a sitting president's construction plans

Millet and Garcia grounded their decision in the Property Clause, which they said "vests Congress with plenary control over all real property that belongs to the United States." Their opinion framed the ballroom project as historically unprecedented, a president acting alone, with privately raised money, to reshape the White House compound.

The majority wrote:

"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. Until now."

They added that Congress "has not ceded unfettered authority to the Executive Branch to dramatically redesign, reshape, and reconstruct the White House, the People's House, to fit a particular President's desires." The framing was unmistakable: in the majority's view, this was an executive overreach into legislative territory.

The ruling follows two earlier decisions by Senior U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, who paused construction while allowing some underground work to continue. The appeals court upheld Leon's injunction and went further, making clear that no above-ground construction may proceed without Congress acting first. The Washington Examiner reported that the court's order includes a 14-day stay, giving the Justice Department a window to take the case to the Supreme Court before the injunction fully takes effect.

The pattern of federal judges intervening against Trump administration actions has become a recurring flashpoint. Earlier this year, the same DC Circuit signaled skepticism about executive authority over the ballroom project during oral arguments.

Rao's dissent: the Trust has no standing, and the president can improve his own residence

Judge Rao did not hold back. She argued that the district court "had no jurisdiction because the Trust has no standing to stop construction at the White House." Standing, the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete, personal injury, has been the administration's central defense throughout the case.

Rao also challenged the majority on the merits, writing that "the ballroom is also likely within the President's authority to make improvements to the Executive Residence at the White House." She painted the injunction as a lopsided trade-off between aesthetics and security:

"The district court elevated the aesthetic displeasure of a single passerby over the government's security interests in the ballroom and the security risks of leaving an open construction site at the President's home and office."

That line, "a single passerby", captures the dissent's core objection. In Rao's telling, the National Trust's complaint boils down to one person's visual preference weighed against the safety of the president, his staff, visiting heads of state, and future occupants of the White House. The majority did not address this characterization directly in the excerpts available from the opinion.

Congressional responses to judicial blocks on Trump policies have grown more aggressive in recent months. One House member filed an impeachment resolution against a federal judge who blocked a separate Trump order earlier this year.

Trump frames the ruling as a national security threat and heads to the Supreme Court

Trump responded on Truth Social within hours, announcing he would immediately appeal to the Supreme Court. He cast the decision in stark terms, calling it "horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful" and invoking the military and Secret Service.

As Fox News reported, Trump wrote that "the Military and Secret Service are viewing this horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful ruling as a National Security threat to our Nation in that the entire Complex is being built for the protection of our Country and, additionally, all future Presidents."

He pressed the standing issue hard, writing that "the Circuit Court's decision, which is totally wrong on the vital subject of STANDING, of which the plaintiff has none, severely jeopardizes the lives and welfare of the people who work, and will be working, at the White House, including all future Presidents of the United States, and their families."

Trump also described the project in aspirational terms. Newsmax noted that the president declared on Truth Social, "It will be magnificent, safe, and secure!" The outlet placed the project's estimated cost at $400 million, while a Washington Post investigation linked in the primary reporting cited a figure upward of $600 million. The full funding breakdown, how much comes from private donations versus taxpayer dollars, remains unclear.

The administration has faced a string of judicial obstacles on other fronts as well. The DHS general counsel recently publicly named federal judges he said were blocking deportation flights.

Fourteen days, then the Supreme Court decides

The practical effect of the ruling is a 14-day window. If the Supreme Court does not intervene in that time, all above-ground construction must stop. Underground work that Judge Leon previously permitted may continue, though the scope of that exception has not been detailed publicly.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed its original lawsuit after workers had already bulldozed portions of the East Wing. The nonprofit argued that neither the president nor the National Park Service had the legal authority to demolish structures that Congress authorized and taxpayers funded. Thaddeus Heuer, a lawyer for the Trust, told Just The News that the administration's problem is simple: "They just don't want to go to Congress."

The DOJ did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

Trump has shown a willingness to press forward on executive actions even after judicial setbacks. He signed new executive orders on birthright citizenship after an earlier Supreme Court loss, pivoting rather than retreating.

Several open questions hang over the case as it moves toward the high court. Congress has not publicly weighed in on whether it would authorize the project, and it remains unclear whether any formal request for approval has been made. The security justifications Trump cited on Truth Social have not been detailed in publicly available filings. And the identity of the "single passerby" Rao referenced in her dissent, the person whose complaint apparently helped anchor the Trust's standing argument, has not been disclosed.

A question of who owns the People's House

At bottom, this case turns on a straightforward constitutional question: can a president reshape the White House on his own, or does that power belong to the people's elected representatives in Congress? Two judges said Congress. One said the president. Now nine justices will likely have the final word.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the DC Circuit, it will establish a firm precedent that no president, this one or any future one, can unilaterally tear down and rebuild portions of the White House without going to Capitol Hill first. If it sides with the administration, the ballroom goes up, and the executive branch gains broad authority over the physical footprint of the most famous government building in the country.

The two judges who blocked the project were appointed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The one who would have let it proceed was appointed by Trump. That lineup will not be lost on anyone watching, and it underscores why the Supreme Court's composition matters far beyond any single construction project.

When the government's own courts tell a president he cannot improve the security of the building where he lives and works, and the deciding votes come from his political opponents' appointees, the American people are right to ask whether the law is doing the talking, or the politics.