The National Capital Planning Commission voted 8-1 on Thursday to approve President Donald Trump's 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom addition, pushing the project past its last major regulatory checkpoint just two days after a federal judge ordered construction stopped without congressional sign-off. The vote hands the administration a procedural win even as the legal fight over the $400 million project is far from settled.
Commission Chairman Will Scharf, a Trump appointee who also serves as White House staff secretary, told fellow commissioners that Judge Richard Leon's ruling "really does not impact our action here today." His reasoning: the court order targets physical construction, not the planning review process. The commission's job, he argued, was to evaluate the design, and that is what it did.
The distinction matters. With both the Commission of Fine Arts, which approved the project earlier this year, and now the National Capital Planning Commission on board, the ballroom has cleared every planning gate the federal government requires. What stands between Trump and a finished building is the courthouse, and the clock on his second term, which ends in early 2029.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon sided with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a private nonprofit that sued after Trump demolished the East Wing last October with little advance notice. Leon agreed to a temporary halt to construction until the project was presented to both commissions and to Congress for approval. His order, however, carries a two-week delay before it takes effect, and it carves out an exception for security-related construction work.
The judge's language, as reported by Newsmax, was pointed. "The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!" Leon wrote. He added: "No statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have."
Those are strong words from a George W. Bush appointee. But Scharf noted the administration is already seeking an appeal, and the two-week stay gives the White House time to do so. Site preparation and underground work have been underway since the East Wing came down last fall, and security-related construction can continue regardless.
This is hardly the first time a federal judge has tried to slow a Trump administration initiative. A separate federal court recently blocked the administration's Haitian deportation plan, part of a broader pattern of judicial intervention that has defined Trump's second term.
The ballroom addition would be the biggest structural change to the White House in more than 70 years. At 90,000 square feet, the proposed space is nearly twice the size of the mansion itself. Trump first floated the idea last summer, citing the need for a proper venue to host important guests rather than relying on a tent pitched on the South Lawn.
Trump announced design changes aboard Air Force One on Sunday as he flew back to Washington from his Florida home. A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said additional "refinements" had been made to the exterior. Trump removed a large staircase on the south side and added an uncovered porch to the southwest side of the building, the Associated Press reported.
The lone "no" vote came from Phil Mendelson, a Democrat who chairs the Council of the District of Columbia. "It's just too large," Mendelson said, criticizing both the scale of the design and the speed of the approval process. Two commissioners appointed by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Linda Argo and Arrington Dixon, voted "present," effectively abstaining. One commissioner was absent.
Vice Chairman Stuart Levenbach, the federal government's chief statistician, voted in favor. He argued the White House is currently "not suited" to accommodate large numbers of guests and that tunnels and other underground structures make it impossible to place many ballroom features below grade. "This is not an expansion for its own sake," Levenbach said, calling it a "multipurpose facility" that would improve the compound's overall "utility."
Commissioner James Blair, a deputy to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, said visitors and guests of the president deserve a "better experience." Both Blair and Scharf noted that Trump will get "very limited use" of the ballroom before his term ends, a point meant to counter the argument that this is a vanity project for one president's benefit.
The commission vote was originally scheduled for March but was postponed after an unusually large number of people signed up to comment at that meeting. Thursday's session still drew sharp criticism from opponents who say the process has been rushed and that the commission's membership tilts too heavily toward Trump appointees.
Jon Golinger, an attorney for the nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, did not mince words. "This approval is illegitimate and this vote is a joke," Golinger said. He accused the commission of discounting opposition from city officials and thousands of public commenters who objected to the project, and of ignoring the judge's ruling entirely.
The New York Post reported that Public Citizen is likely to sue over the approval itself, citing concerns about the qualifications of Trump appointees on the commission and design changes made after the public comment period closed. Golinger argued the commission "voted to approve a project that wasn't actually calendared today," putting members in legal jeopardy.
The administration has shown it is willing to fight these battles in court. Trump has publicly clashed with the judiciary on multiple fronts during his second term, and the ballroom dispute fits a familiar pattern: executive action, judicial pushback, appeal, and political combat over who has the final say.
Trump himself pushed back on the idea that he needs congressional permission. As the Washington Times reported, the president said: "We built many things at the White House over the years. They don't get congressional approval."
Trump has said the ballroom will be paid for with donations from wealthy individuals and corporations, including his own money. The estimated cost now stands at $400 million, a figure that has drawn scrutiny but also reflects the scale of a project that would fundamentally reshape the White House compound for the first time since the Truman-era renovation.
Scharf delivered an extended defense of the commission's review process, pushing back on what he called unfair media coverage. "I feel that we've been unfairly slighted in the press and otherwise for the way we've gone about reviewing this particular project," he said. He attributed the negative coverage to political opposition to Trump rather than legitimate concerns about the planning process itself.
He also made a broader case for the project's legacy. Just The News reported Scharf's full remarks: "I believe that in time, the nation and successive presidents of both parties and all political stripes long into the future will be grateful to President Trump for having initiated and brought this project into being."
Trump echoed that sentiment on social media, writing: "When completed, it will be the Greatest and Most Beautiful Ballroom of its kind anywhere in the World, and a fabulous complement to our Beautiful and Storied White House!"
Whether the project reaches completion before January 2029 depends on how fast the appellate courts move. The administration has its planning approvals in hand. It has a funding model that does not rely on taxpayer dollars. And it has a president who has shown, across two terms, that he does not slow down when judges tell him to stop.
The pattern of courts attempting to constrain Trump administration actions is by now well established. Sometimes the courts prevail. Sometimes the administration finds a path around the obstacle. The ballroom fight will test which outcome applies when the stakes are not policy but bricks and mortar on the most famous address in America.
Several loose ends remain. The judge's order references congressional approval, but the specific mechanism, whether a formal vote, an appropriations rider, or some other legislative action, has not been spelled out. The identity of the anonymous White House official who described the latest design refinements is unknown. And Public Citizen's threatened lawsuit over the commission vote itself could open a second legal front beyond the existing National Trust case.
Not every judicial ruling has gone against the administration, and the appeal of Leon's order may yet produce a different result at the circuit level. For now, the planning is done. The legal battle is not.
A president who builds things will always draw fire from people who prefer nothing ever change. The question is whether the courts will let the concrete set before the lawyers finish arguing.