The court order came amid a lawsuit filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argued that the White House bypassed legally required review procedures before demolishing the East Wing and beginning site preparation. The nonprofit sought an emergency halt to construction, asserting that federal oversight bodies were sidelined during early phases of the project.
.webp)
“The Court will hold the Government to its word,” Leon wrote in his ruling.
Construction activity has already been underway for months. Crews began clearing foliage and removing trees in mid-September, followed by the demolition of the East Wing in late October. By early December, cranes and pile drivers were operating daily as teams worked to establish underground infrastructure for the proposed ballroom.
According to commission documents, the Jan. 8 meeting will not include a public comment period, nor will commissioners vote on approval at that time. Officials have said that materials have not yet been formally submitted and that future meetings will include additional steps in the review process.
Trump administration officials stated in court filings that aboveground construction would not begin before April, contingent on commission approval.
The NCPC is chaired by Will Scharf, the White House staff secretary and Trump’s former personal attorney, whom the president appointed earlier this year. The commission’s membership includes multiple Trump appointees alongside Cabinet secretaries and local and federal officials.
Critics argue that the review timeline represents a sharp departure from past precedent. Historically, major White House construction projects underwent multi-year, multi-stage review processes before any physical work began. By contrast, the ballroom project has advanced rapidly, with significant demolition and site preparation completed prior to commission involvement.
.jpg)
Scharf has maintained that the NCPC’s authority extends only to “vertical” construction and not demolition or site preparation. That interpretation has drawn criticism from preservation advocates and former commission officials, who point to past approvals that included site development and demolition review.
The commission adopted Scharf’s interpretation in its recent documentation, stating that the law does not grant authority over “the demolition of buildings or general site preparation.”
Concerns have also emerged over the project’s financing. Lawmakers and watchdog groups have questioned the solicitation of private donations to fund the ballroom and whether contributors received preferential treatment.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, sent letters this week seeking information from attendees of a White House dinner honoring ballroom donors.
“The American people are entitled to all the relevant facts about who is funding the most substantial construction project at the White House in recent history,” Blumenthal wrote.
As the review process moves forward, scrutiny is expected to intensify over transparency, historic preservation and the administration’s interpretation of federal oversight requirements.
Originally reported by Jonathan Edwards and Dan Diamond in The Washington Post.
