Skip to main content

Supreme Court temporarily allows construction of White House ballroom to continue

(CNN) — The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Donald Trump to continue working on a massive new ballroom at the White House, freezing a court ruling that would have required construction to stop at midnight Friday.

Friday afternoon’s order doesn’t address the legality of the project, which two other courts have said Trump is pursuing unlawfully because Congress hasn’t approved it. Instead, it’s meant to give the justices additional time to consider Trump’s request that the adverse rulings be paused indefinitely.

Construction has been progressing rapidly, with a 250-person crew working 20-hour days, 7 days per week, according to a filing submitted by the Trump administration to the Supreme Court. The government put the ballroom complex at “65% complete in its entirety.”

The order from Chief Justice John Roberts, who handles emergency cases rising from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, did not set a new deadline, meaning the construciton can continue at the White House until the Supreme Court issues another order.

Because it’s an administrative stay handled solely by Roberts, there was no reasoning, vote count or dissent. Roberts is certain to refer to the case to all nine justices.

Since returning to office last year, Trump, who spent decades as a real estate developer, has sought to remake various parts of Washington to suit his personal tastes. The ballroom project has been the most substantial part of that effort, with his destruction of the former White House East Wing last year to make room for the event space causing consternation on both sides of the aisle.

“This will be the greatest military complex slash ballroom anywhere in the world. There won’t be anything like it,” Trump said in August as he discussed the project.

The president views the ballroom and other construction projects as the foundation of his legacy, according to sources familiar with his thinking, and recently suggested that those who oppose the effort are “very disloyal to our country.”

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, the nation’s top historic preservation group, sued over the project in December and later convinced a federal judge in DC to order Trump to stop with work on the ballroom until Congress gives him authority to move forward.

The judge, Richard Leon, permitted workers to continue building a highly sophisticated bunker beneath the planned ballroom, citing Trump’s argument at the time that the two spaces were distinct from one another.

But as time went on, Trump and top officials have increasingly said that the entire structure was needed for national security reasons, citing attempts that have been made on the president’s life in recent years. Trump tried, unsuccessfully, to get the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to undo Leon’s ruling. But in early August, the court agreed with the judge in a divided ruling that required work to cease starting August 21.

“Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help,” the DC Circuit said in its 2-1 ruling.

“The National Trust has shown, compellingly, that Congress has not ceded unfettered authority to the Executive Branch to dramatically redesign, reshape, and reconstruct the White House – the People’s House – to fit a particular President’s desires,” the appeals court concluded.

Days later, Trump asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that the ballroom was necessary because of earlier threats to the president’s life, national security needs and architectural values.

“The President of the United States of America is not a tenant, but rather the sole, elected head of the Executive Branch, and Congress has authorized him to renovate, secure, and protect the White House and its grounds, as other Presidents have been allowed to do, without exception,” Sauer wrote, going on to describe Leon’s ruling as “judicial overreach.”

Debate over standing

One of the government’s principal arguments in the case is that the Trust lacks the legal right – known as “standing” – to sue in the first place. Lower courts have said that the Trust has standing because one of its members, Alison Hoagland, has shown that her enjoyment of the White House as an architectural historian is being harmed by the new ballroom.

“The person said she walked along and she didn’t like the view, even though nothing was built,” Trump said this week as he discussed the case. “The woman has absolutely no standing.”

In asking the justices to step into the dispute, the administration revealed how much construction had progressed in recent months. Filings submitted to the court said hundreds of workers were spending “20 hours a day, 7 days a week to keep the project ahead of schedule and under budget,” and that it was already more than halfway done.

Sauer said that among the building materials being used is a type of concrete that is also used at nuclear power plants and nearly impossible to deconstruct.

Lawyers for the Trust seized on that point as they urged the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s request. They said the administration was trying to “outrun judicial review” by speeding ahead with a project that may, eventually, be irreversible.

A decision favorable to the president, the Trust told the justices in court papers, would cause the preservationists the type of irreparable harm courts weighing emergency disputes are typically sympathetic to.

“Nothing in the district court’s carefully tailored injunction prevents them from continuing work on the bunker, securing the East Wing site, or ensuring the safety of the President, his family, and staff,” the Trust’s lawyers wrote. “All the injunction stops is construction of a ballroom without prior congressional approval. Petitioners have not – and cannot – show that being temporarily unable to build that ballroom demands emergency relief.”

A recent review from PolitiFact found that in 2026, the president has spent significant time talking about those projects during public remarks — more than any other topic, with the exception of his war with Iran.

And as the legal fight has intensified, the price tag of the ballroom has steadily increased. The administration initially put the cost at $200 million. Trump said in the fall it would cost “about $300 million.” This month, he said that “$400 million almost” had already been spent.

The Washington Post obtained internal contracts and documents setting the cost of Trump’s changes to the White House complex, including the Rose Garden, a helipad, and other projects, at roughly $900 million.

This story has been updated with additional details.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Woman covertly filmed by Meta smart glasses raises privacy concerns

▶ Watch Video: Looking into the privacy safeguard features of AI smart glasses A woman discovered she had been secretly filmed by a man wearing Meta's AI-powered smart glasses when friends and people she hadn't talked to in years sent her a video posted on social media. "It went viral. Across all platforms, probably over 200,000 views," Toluwa Omitowoju said. It's a growing trend with content creators increasingly using wearable AI tech to record everyday people in prank pickup line videos – often without their consent. Omitowoju was shocked and displeased to see herself in one such video, which has since been taken down. She had no idea she was being filmed, nor was she asked before the video was posted."I had no say," Omitowoju said, adding that other women have shared similar experiences with her."It was a lot worse. It was to the point where they don't even know who filmed them and yet it's being posted online under a burner account," she said.Adam Mosseri, the head of Meta-owned social media giant Instagram, said the platform is cracking down on videos that harass people or invade their privacy."If you're posting content that is taking advantage of people and harassing them, like a lot of these pickup line kind of videos that we've heard of and seen recently, then we're going to take the content down," he said in July. "We don't want people to be surreptitiously taking videos of other people and harassing them and then posting them on our platform."Meta has come under fire for privacy concerns before.In May, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched an investigation into Ray-Ban Meta glasses, alleging that the glasses could violate personal privacy by using cameras, speakers and more to covertly film people, including in private moments such as bathroom visits."Privacy and data protection are core to every product we build at Meta, including Ray-Ban Meta glasses," Meta said in a statement at the time. Meta told CBS News that its glasses have built-in privacy and safety features, including a telltale LED light that turns on when the glasses are recording and software that is supposed to prevent recording if the light is covered or disabled.CBS News' Anna Schecter put this feature to the test. She found the disabling mechanism did not appear to work when she covered the light after already starting to record.A Meta spokesperson told CBS News the tamper detection is designed to prevent recording if the light is covered before pressing record."If the glasses detect that the capture LED is covered or obstructed, they will disable capture and prompt the wearer to clear the obstruction," the company said in a statement to CBS News. Meta added it continues to "work to improve this technology."Another privacy complication is that most states only require the consent of one person to record an interaction, which means only the person recording has to know. Omitowoju said she believes that wearable technology is a huge threat to personal privacy."If someone sees a phone in front of their face, they have the opportunity to step away, to approach someone and say, 'Hey, I don't want you to record.' With these smart glasses and the smart technology, you're taking away the right of refusal," she said.
Read Next Story