A conservation group sued US President Donald Trump on Friday, asking him to suspend his controversial White House ballroom project pending independent reviews and Congressional approval.
The privately funded group National Trust for Historic Preservation has asked a U.S. District Court in a lawsuit to block Donald Trump’s plan to expand the White House Ballroom until a thorough design review, environmental assessment, public comment, congressional debate and ratification are completed.
The Trump White House Ballroom has already seen the historic building’s east wing demolished. The White House ballroom project has drawn criticism in the preservation and architectural communities and among its political opponents.
Read also | Democrats introduced legislation to limit donations to Trump’s White House ballroom
What does the lawsuit say?
The lawsuit is the most tangible effort yet to change or halt the president’s plans for the addition, which itself would be nearly twice the size of the White House before the East Wing was demolished.
Read also | Calibri canceled? Inside Trump’s decision to bring back Times New Roman
“No president is legally allowed to tear down parts of the White House without any oversight — not President Trump, not President Biden, and not anyone else,” the lawsuit says. “And no president is allowed by law to build a ballroom on public land without giving the public an opportunity to object.”
The trust further wants the court to declare that by fast-tracking the project, Trump committed multiple violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, while exceeding his constitutional authority by failing to consult with lawmakers.
The Trust argues that no further work should be done until officials “have completed the required inspections – inspections which should have taken place before the Defendants demolished the East Wing and before they began building the Ballroom”.
White House comments
The White House says Trump has “full legal authority” over the building.
White House spokesman David Ingle responded to questions about the lawsuit with a blanket statement that Trump has “full legal authority to modernize, renovate and beautify the White House — as have all of his predecessors.”
Ingle did not specifically comment when asked by the AP whether the president would consult with Congress at any point.
Read also | The White House pulled the video after Sabrina Carpenter criticized the use of the song in the ICE footage
The White House’s response correctly states that basically every president makes some changes in the White House. But Trump’s effort is the most extensive since the nearly complete gutting of the mansion’s dilapidated interior during President Harry Truman’s tenure. Truman sought and received express authorization from Congress along with appropriations. He also consulted the American Society of Engineers and the Commission on Fine Arts and appointed a bipartisan commission to oversee the project.
Trump, a Republican, has emphasized since announcing the project that he is doing it with private money, including his own. But that wouldn’t necessarily change the way federal laws and procedures apply to what is still a US government project.
The president has already bypassed the federal government’s usual construction procedures and historical reviews when demolishing the east wing. He recently added another architectural office to the project.
Trump has long said the White House ballroom is behind schedule, and complained that events were held outside under a tent because the East Room and State Dining Room could not accommodate larger crowds. Among other things, Trump said that guests will get their feet wet if it rains during such events.
The White House is expected to submit plans for the new Trump Ballroom to the Federal Planning Commission by the end of the year, about three months after construction begins.
Will Scharf, whom Trump appointed chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, told the panel’s monthly meeting last week that he had been told by White House colleagues that the long-awaited plans would be presented in December.
“Once the plans are put forward, that’s really when the role of this commission and its professional staff begins,” said Scharf, who is also one of the Republican president’s top advisers in the White House.
He said the review process would proceed at a “normal and consultative pace”.
As well as being too late, the Trust argues, it is nowhere near enough.
The federal law cites “express authority of Congress” over DC projects
The trust says the plans should have been submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission, the Fine Arts Commission and Congress before any action was taken. The suit says the Trust wrote to those entities and the National Park Service on Oct. 21 after demolition of the east wing began, calling for a halt to the project and asking the administration to comply with federal law.
“The National Trust has received no response,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit cites a litany of federal laws and rules detailing the role that planning and fine arts commissions and lawmakers play in U.S. government construction projects.
Among them is the law: “No building or structure shall be erected in any reservation, park, or public land of the federal government in the District of Columbia without the express consent of Congress.”
The Trust also notes that the range design and environmental assessment, along with Congressional action, would include public input.
“This public participation, while important in all preservation matters, is particularly critical here where the structure at issue is perhaps the most famous and historically significant building in the country,” the complaint states.
In addition to the president, the suit names as defendants the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, and the General Services Administration, along with the leaders of those federal agencies.
Key things
- The lawsuit emphasizes the need for public input and compliance with federal laws before making changes to significant national monuments.
- Preservation groups are actively challenging actions they see as illegal, signaling a potential shift in the way presidential projects are vetted.
- This case highlights the tension between presidential authority and the legislative process regarding public property.
