The Trump administration is asking a federal judge to dissolve an injunction blocking parts of President Donald Trump’s planned White House ballroom, using a new court filing that blends legal argument, national security claims, and unusually political language aimed at the project’s opponents.
In a nine-page motion filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Justice Department lawyers asked Judge Richard Leon to issue an indicative ruling saying he would dissolve his injunction if the appeals court returns jurisdiction to him. The case is National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service.
The filing attacks the National Trust for Historic Preservation as “FAKE,” says the group is “very bad for our Country,” and claims the plaintiffs suffer from “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” It also singles out Gregory Craig, the Trust’s lawyer, by describing him as “the lawyer for Barack Hussein Obama.”
The motion argues that the proposed ballroom is not merely an event space, but part of an integrated security facility with underground secure areas, military-grade systems, blast-resistant materials, bulletproof glass, drone-proof ceilings, medical facilities, bomb shelters, and “Top Secret military installations.” Those claims are presented by the administration as justification for urgent construction.
The administration tied the request to a reported shooting incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, arguing that the attack showed Washington lacks a secure large-event venue for presidents, cabinet members, senior staff, and guests.
The filing claims the new White House facility would have prevented the kind of off-site security breach described in the motion.
“What he did on Saturday night could not have taken place in this new and highly secure facility!” it said. “This Court should never have enjoined this Project, but now, after the Saturday night attempted assassination, which could have never taken place in the new facility, reasonable minds can no longer differ — The injunction must be dissolved.”
The National Trust has refused to drop its lawsuit. AP reported that the preservation group says the case is not about blocking security upgrades, but about whether the administration can proceed with a major White House construction project without required congressional and legal approvals.
The planned ballroom is now estimated at $400 million, would seat 999 people, and would be privately funded, while public funds would cover a new underground bunker and security improvements.
Senate push funding for White House ballroom
The project has already escalated beyond the courtroom. Reuters reported that Senate Republicans, led by Lindsey Graham, Katie Britt, and Eric Schmitt, are pushing legislation to fund and expedite the ballroom, including $332 million from customs fees. The bill would authorize taxpayer support even after Trump previously said the ballroom would be funded by private donations.
The proposal centers on a roughly 90,000-square-foot ballroom connected to the White House complex, after the historic East Wing was demolished. Earlier this month, Judge Leon granted the National Trust’s request for a preliminary injunction after the group alleged Trump exceeded his authority by razing the East Wing and launching construction.
The current legal posture is messy. The administration has appealed Leon’s injunction, which it says divests the district court of jurisdiction. That is why DOJ is using Rule 62.1, a procedural mechanism that lets a district court signal whether it would grant relief if the appeals court sends the matter back. The administration argues that changed circumstances, especially the shooting, now make the injunction untenable.
The Trust’s position is that the shooting does not erase the legal questions. They argue that the administration still must comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, including congressional approval.
A federal appeals court has allowed construction to continue for now, with a full hearing scheduled for June 5.
Information for this story was found via the sources and companies mentioned. The author has no securities or affiliations related to the organizations discussed. Not a recommendation to buy or sell. Always do additional research and consult a professional before purchasing a security. The author holds no licenses.
