(WASHINGTON) — The federal judge presiding over a challenge to the White House ballroom project signaled deep skepticism of the Trump administration’s argument that the president has the legal authority to undertake the East Wing renovations and to fund them with private donations.
In a hearing on Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon pressed an administration lawyer on both of those issues — as he questioned whether the president has the power to tear down part of what he called “an icon that’s a national institution,” and described the intent to fund it with private gifts as a “Rube Goldberg contraption” that would evade congressional oversight.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit last month seeking to stop the ballroom construction until the project completes the federal review process standard for federal building projects and the administration seeks public comment on the proposed changes.
The National Trust, the privately funded nonprofit designated by Congress to protect historic sites, was seeking a preliminary injunction.
At the end of the hour-long hearing Thursday, Judge Leon said he will likely not issue a decision this month, but “hopefully” in February. He said he expects the losing side to appeal.
In a statement provided to ABC News, White House spokesman Davis Ingle said: “President Trump is working 24/7 to Make America Great Again, including his historic beautification of the White House, at no taxpayer expense. These long-needed upgrades will benefit generations of future presidents and American visitors to the People’s House.”
The White House announced the construction of a 90,000-square foot ballroom in late July, and demolition began suddenly on the East Wing in late October, when workers were spotted tearing down the wing of the White House that contained the first lady’s offices.
The size and cost of the project have increased since first being unveiled. In November, Trump said the project would cost $400 million, after an initial estimate of $200 million. The White House has said the project will be funded by private donations.
Judge Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said the Trump administration appears to be making an “end run” around congressional oversight with the president’s plan to privately raise $400 million for the ballroom project, and he admonished the Justice Department’s lawyer to “be serious” in justifying a legal rationale for it.
While the case presents a series of complicated and overlapping legal issues, the judge spent much of the hearing focused on just two federal statutes — one, which says that no “building or structure” can be built on any federal public grounds in the District of Columbia “without express authority of Congress,” and another that calls for yearly appropriations for the “maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing [and] improvement” of the White House.
Leon noted that Republicans control both houses of Congress, and that the president could have gone to lawmakers to seek approval for the demolition and rebuild. He also suggested the $2.5 million Congress recently appropriated for White House maintenance was for “very small-size projects,” not a ballroom.
Justice Department lawyer Yaakov Roth responded that Trump didn’t want $400 million in taxpayer money to be used for the project, when he could solicit gifts to the National Park Service to fund it instead. Roth also noted that Congress was never asked in Gerald Ford’s era to approve the building of a swimming pool, or a tennis pavilion during Trump’s first term.
“[Your argument for using NPS’s gift authority] on an icon that’s a national treasure is, what? The ’77 Gerald Ford swimming pool?” Leon asked. “You compare that to ripping down the East Wing? C’mon! Be serious.”
Leon said he saw “no basis” in the legislative history of the park service’s gift authority that would allow Trump to use it to raise $400 million to build a new White House ballroom. “None,” Leon said. “Zero.”
Arguing for the National Trust, attorney Tad Heuer described the president as a “temporary tenant of the White House, not the landlord.” Leon suggested “steward” might be a more fitting term.
“He is not the owner,” Heuer said.
As Roth took the podium to begin his argument on behalf of the administration, he attempted to convince the judge that the National Trust has no standing to sue. Leon abruptly cut him off.
“I’m very comfortable with standing in this case,” Leon said. “Sorry to disappoint you. You’ll get your chance at the Court of Appeals.”
Roth warned the judge that an order halting construction at this stage could expose the existing White House structure to damage and potentially lead to security concerns, since it’s widely believed that a replacement for a previously-existing underground bunker is part of the project. The National Trust has said it would not object to continued construction on the security portion of the work.
“It can’t be divided out that way,” Roth said of the security-related construction, “unless we want the court to be the project manager on site.”
Leon declined to issue an order from the bench. He said the coming winter storm made it unlikely he would issue a ruling on the National Trust’s motion for a preliminary injunction before the end of this month.
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddard contributed to this report.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story misidentified an attorney for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The story has been corrected and updated.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.