DOJ Claims That Trump’s $400 Million Ballroom Is Necessary For National Security

Facing an imminent district court decision that could halt construction on President Donald Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom project, Department of Justice lawyers are now indicating that they will appeal any adverse decision by arguing that the proposed ballroom has “national security implications.”

“If the Court ultimately enjoins the East Wing Modernization and State Ballroom Project,” the Trump administration would “immediately appeal that order,” Justice Department lawyers said in a court filing on Monday. “Given the exigencies involved in suspending a major ongoing construction project with national security implications, Defendants are filing this motion in advance of any ruling, to avoid an emergency situation or at least to facilitate expedited proceedings on appeal.” The administration claimed that building a permanent space for large events would increase security.

The case came to the D.C. district court after the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States sued to stop construction of the ballroom following the surprise demolition of the White House’s East Wing. The trust argued that the project was illegal as the administration failed to properly notify and involve Congress, the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission on Fine Arts and did not conduct proper environmental assessments.

This isn’t the first invocation of national security in the ongoing lawsuit over Trump’s ballroom. It is, however, the most direct explanation of how the administration plans to get an appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule a decision that halts construction on the president’s premier vanity project.

During Trump’s second term, the Justice Department has repeatedly invoked national security as a kind of get-out-of-court-free card in cases that appear to have little connection to national security at all. Administration lawyers argue that the judges must defer to a president’s determination that something implicates national security and, in some cases, cannot even hear cases that involve the president’s national security determinations. Labeling Trump’s vanity ballroom project as related to national security is perhaps the most egregious example so far.

Previous court filings have detailed how the project may implicate national security. The contractor’s demolition of the East Wing and commencement of underground construction for the ballroom required “improvements to the site … before the Secret Service’s safety and security requirements can be met,” according to a Dec. 15 declaration by Secret Service deputy director Matthew Quinn.

The ballroom would also increase security by removing the necessity for temporary screening sites for large events, Quinn wrote in a Jan. 15 declaration.

“Having permanent, updated, and secure structures for screening guests and hosting events will obviate the need to use outdoor tents and the temporary screening building for future events and will also increase the safety and security of all attendees at those events, including the President and foreign leaders and dignitaries,” Quinn wrote.

The administration’s filing on Monday indicates that Justice Department lawyers have filed two classified declarations with the court to further explain supposed national security implications.

Judge Richard Leon previously denied a temporary restraining order to block construction in December following the unannounced destruction of the East Wing. Instead, Leon stated that he would reserve judgment as he considered a preliminary injunction after hearing arguments in the case. Following arguments in January, Leon stated that he would issue a ruling in February.