A member of the media raises her hand for a question as U.S. President Donald Trump talks while holding up renderings of the planned White House ballroom, aboard Air Force One en route to Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., March 29, 2026.
Judge Richard Leon issued a clarification to his previous ruling on Thursday after President Donald Trump's administration filed an appeal to his stay of the ballroom construction.
On March 31, Judge Leon issued a pause on construction after The National Trust for Historic Preservation asked the courts to stop the construction of Trump's 90,000-square-foot entertainment space.
Judge Leon explained that his order blocked Defendants (excluding the President) from "taking any action in furtherance of the physical development of the proposed ballroom at the former site of the East Wing of the White House, including but not limited to any further demolition, site preparation work, landscape alteration, excavation, foundation work, or other construction or related work[.]"
In his order, Judge Leon made it clear that Trump was “the steward of the White House,” but not “the owner!"
Trump responded by fuming about the judge, "The National Trust for Historic Preservation sues me for a Ballroom that is under budget, ahead of schedule, being built at no cost to the Taxpayer, and will be the finest Building of its kind anywhere in the World,” the president wrote on Truth Social after the ruling. “Doesn’t make much sense, does it?”
The National Trust then sought a clarification from the judge, and the Circuit Court remanded it for clarification.
"My Order excluded from the scope of the injunction 'actions strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House and its grounds, including the ballroom construction site, and provide for the personal safety of the President and his staff' (the 'safety-and-security exception')," wrote the judge.
The ballroom project sits atop a significant renovation of the presidential "bunker" built during World War II. Trump wanted to rebuild it and add other features and offices to the space that will be many stories underground. The administration's claim is that the entire ballroom project is necessary for national security due to the reconstruction of the bunker. But the clarification on Thursday said that the two are not the same project and that the security portion may continue. It's the ballroom that may not.
"Defendants argue that the entire ballroom construction project, from tip to tail, falls within the safety-and-security exception and therefore may proceed unabated. That is neither a reasonable nor a correct reading of my Order! My Order preliminarily enjoined Defendants (excluding the President) from 'taking any action in furtherance of the physical development of the proposed ballroom,'" the judge wrote.
In his clarification Thursday, the judge went line-by-line and very specifically gave instructions about the ballroom construction.
"First, limiting the scope of the injunction to above-ground construction directly addresses the National Trust's irreparable harm, which stems from the above-ground, visible construction of the ballroom," he wrote.
"Second, the injunction excludes only below-ground construction because, throughout this case..." it continued.
The reason he explained for the two projects being independent comes from the White House lawyers's own arguments.
"The exception for underground national security facilities does not include the proposed ballroom because Defendants themselves distinguished between below-ground and above-ground construction, stating that 'the below-surface work is driven by national security concerns independent of the above-grade construction,'" Judge Leon said.
The White House had attempted to claim that there were security issues with the ballroom because the structure itself would feature bulletproof glass and a "drone-proof roof." That didn't work for the judge either.
"The fact that the ballroom is planned to include security features such as bulletproof windows and a drone-proof roof does not bring the structure within the scope of the exception. While these features may well be beneficial, Defendants have not provided any national security justification for why these features must be installed immediately such that they should be excluded from the scope of the injunction," he wrote.
Leon, an appointee by former President George W. Bush, had previously mocked the administration during court discussions after the White House lawyers claimed that there were previous projects such as a swimming pool and tennis pavilion, that weren't previously such a huge issue.
"The ‘77 Gerald Ford swimming pool? You compare that to tearing down and building a new East Wing? Come on. Be serious," Leon scoffed at the lawyers.