Federal court documents reviewed by ENR show the Trump administration is pushing for construction on the White House ballroom to continue, formally opposing efforts to halt the project while asking a judge to consider sealed national security filings that would limit public scrutiny.
The Dec. 15 filings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, mark the government’s first comprehensive defense of the project since demolition of the east wing began.
Court records show the White House formally opposed a request by the National Trust for Historic Preservation to stop construction of the planned ballroom and associated temporary facilities in response to the preservation group’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
A hearing is scheduled for Dec. 16 before Judge Richard J. Leon, where the government will argue that the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail and that stopping construction would cause harm.
The administration also asked the court for permission to file a deposition in private and under seal, seeking to submit national security information ex parte and open to the court for review, meaning the judge would review the material in private, off the public record.
RELATED
These same presentations also provide the clearest public snapshot yet of how work is progressing at the site.
National Park Service liaison John Stanwich said the Executive Residence manages the “White House East Wing State Ballroom and Modernization Project” and coordinates weekly with Clark Construction and project architect Shalom Baranes Associates.
According to the filing, above-grade demolition of the east wing and east colonnade was completed earlier this month, and below-grade demolition and excavation is underway.
Stanwich stated that Clark is expected to begin on-grade and below-grade structural concrete work in January around the east colonnade and in February in the east wing area. He stated that structural work above grade will likely not begin before next April.
The statement further notes that the architectural design of the upper elements “is ongoing”. So whatever the final design is, it will eventually fit the base it’s running on.
The presentation also addresses questions raised by both ENR and Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) regarding the reduction of hazardous materials.
Markey, who chairs a Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee, publicly questioned whether East Wing demolition contractor ACECO LLC was licensed to perform the work after news broke of the company’s asbestos abatement license being revoked in 2022. According to Stanwich, Clark was the contractor that performed the hazardous materials abatement last fall.
It was also revealed that the Park Service’s Heritage Documentation Programs completed an American Historic Building Survey documentation of the East Wing and East Colonnade in late August, including scanning and 3D/LIDAR photography, while the Executive Residence and the White House Conservator’s Office created a digital twin of the spaces for future preservation and interpretive use.
Stanwich stated that historic facade materials were recovered and are being stored for reinstatement, including stone columns, doors, windows, fences, plaques, light fixtures and the East Garden’s IM Pei-designed pergola.
While the statement clarifies how construction is proceeding, the litigation centers on whether the project moves forward without traditional federal design review. What the record does not show is any design review completed by federal planning agencies.
In one opposition statement, NPS official Tammy Stidham stated that as of mid-December, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) had not reviewed the project and that NCPC staff had only recently been contacted by the executive branch. No design submissions have been released publicly.
Vacant supervision, rotating leadership
Under federal planning rules, major construction projects on federal land in the National Capital Region are usually subject to review by the National Capital Planning Commission once a design submission is formally advanced by the sponsoring entity.
Court documents do not show a filing for the ballroom project, and NPS officials say preliminary discussions have just begun. Review by the United States Commission of Fine Arts, which normally provides design advice, is not required but is common for projects of this scale.
However, in October, President Donald Trump removed all sitting CFA members, and the commission has not been repopulated. As a result, no independent CFA review of the ballroom design has been undertaken to date.
Litigation aside, the White House changed leadership of the project earlier this month, replacing architect James McCrery with Washington-based firm Shalom Baranes as the project entered what officials described as “a new phase.” The shake-up followed reported disagreements over the proposed size of the ballroom. The White House has not released revised designs or updated renderings.
The replacement of the architect came amid continued unease within the architectural profession to participate in a public project under such extraordinary circumstances.
Financially, the White House has described the ballroom as donor-funded. Court documents show the US Secret Service remains responsible for security operations and access control during construction, with the National Park Service playing a limited role related to site operations and temporary facilities.
The plaintiffs argue that the use of federal land, security resources and Park Service involvement bring the project within the scope of federal review requirements. The government counters that donor funding and agencies’ limited roles do not alter the project’s legal status.
How this distinction affects contractor risk allocation or schedule impacts has not been publicly detailed.
Proceeding with construction despite unresolved legal and design review issues can create practical risks, including the need to resequence work if oversight requirements change, delays in court-ordered breaks, or disputes over responsibility for redesign or rework if final approvals differ from initial assumptions.
Mission Creep increases the risk
Beyond the White House, questions arise about whether the project could serve as a model for other federal properties. Bloomberg Law reported that a filing in the case referred to four additional federal buildings that the administration is considering for demolition or major alteration.
Those details are not included in public court documents reviewed by ENR, and no published executive order or directive outlining those plans has so far been identified.
For contractors and designers, the convergence of litigation, sealed safety records, changing design leadership, unresolved design review, and ambiguous agency authority raise practical concerns about documentation standards, coordination, and accountability at sensitive federal sites.
How the court approaches the government’s request to proceed, including whether to allow sealed filings, is expected to shape the project’s next phase.
