Defending the White House Ballroom, the DOJ Files a Trump Tantrum Masquerading As a Motion
· Reason
After the Secret Service stopped a would-be assassin at the Washington Hilton on Saturday night, President Donald Trump and his allies said the incident demonstrated the urgent need to complete the enormous ballroom he wants to erect on the site of the White House's demolished East Wing. Since the gunman targeted an annual dinner sponsored by the White House Correspondents' Association, as opposed to the executive branch of the U.S. government, that argument was hard to follow. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche nevertheless reiterates it in a motion he filed on Monday night in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Visit tr-sport.bond for more information.
Blanche wants U.S. District Judge Richard Leon to reconsider the wisdom of a March 31 preliminary injunction that barred Trump from completing the project without congressional approval. The practical significance of that motion for an "indicative ruling" is unclear, since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is already considering Trump's challenge to Leon's decision and has stayed the injunction in the meantime. Nor is Leon, who on April 16 rejected a previous motion asking him to lift his injunction, likely to be swayed by Blanche's over-the-top brief, which reads like it was transcribed directly from the president's Truth Social account.
The motion begins by dissing the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the organization that requested the injunction that Leon granted. "'The National Trust for Historic Preservation' is a beautiful name," it says, "but even their name is FAKE because when they add the words 'in the United States' to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, it makes it sound like a Governmental Agency, which it is not. In fact, the United States refused to continue funding it in 2005 because they strongly disagreed with their mission and objectives. They are very bad for our Country. They stop many projects that are worthy, and hurt many others. In this case, they are trying to stop one that is vital to our National Security, and the Safety of all Presidents of the United States, both current and future, their families, staff, and Cabinet members."
The 535-word opening paragraph continues in that vein, averring that the National Trust's leaders "suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, commonly referred to as TDS," and noting that they "are represented by the lawyer for Barack Hussein Obama, Gregory Craig." Then Blanche brings up the attack at the Washington Hilton, saying that "narrow miss," which "marks the third assassination attempt on President Trump since 2024," confirms "what should have already been obvious: Presidents need a secure space for large events." Given that reality, he argues, "this Court's injunction stalling this Project cannot defensibly continue." It is "intolerable," "unsustainable," and "indefensible"—a trifecta worthy of Jackie Chiles.
The ballroom "is required for National Security," Blanche says, because "it will shield the now-exposed East Room of the Executive Mansion and provide best in class, modern security to the President and his family, his Cabinet, his staff, and visitors." Blanche claims the project "will ensure that events like the horrific attack on Saturday night do not happen again," which makes sense only if we assume that private organizations like the White House Correspondents' Association will relocate events attended by the president to his shiny new ballroom.
Leon's injunction—which, it is worth reiterating, is no longer in effect while the case is pending—made an exception for "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." As he later noted, the order did not "stop below-ground construction of national security facilities, work necessary to provide for presidential security, and construction necessary to protect and secure the White House and the construction site itself." But he rejected the government's argument that national security also required the immediate resumption of above-ground construction.
"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," Leon wrote. "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. Nor does it appear Defendants could install these features immediately even if they wanted to. As noted by our Circuit Court, the ballroom's planned security features are still months, if not years, away from being realized—belying Defendants' argument that an inability to implement those features now imposes irreparable harm."
Although it is hard to see how Saturday's "narrow miss" changes that analysis, Blanche claims it does. "The fact that an assassin came mere seconds from shooting the President—along with his family, the bulk of his Cabinet, his senior staff, and the Washington press corps—lays bare that D.C. does not have a secure space for large high-profile events," he says. "What he did on Saturday night could not have taken place in this new and highly secure facility!"
In case that argument does not persuade Leon, the motion adds that the National Trust is picking on Trump only because it hates him so much. "If any other President had the ability, foresight, or talents necessary, to build this ballroom, which will be one of the greatest, safest, and most secure structures of its kind anywhere in the World, there would never have been a lawsuit," it says. "But, because it is DONALD J. TRUMP, a highly successful real estate developer, who has abilities that others don't, especially those who assume the Office of President, this frivolous and meritless lawsuit was filed. Again, it's called TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. On top of everything else, this project is a gift to our Country from President Trump, and other Donors. It is free of charge to the American Taxpayer. Who could ever object to that?"
Amid all this bragging and bluster, it may be easy to lose sight of the reason why Leon (a George W. Bush appointee, in case that matters) did "object to that." Although Trump "claims that Congress has given him authority in existing statutes to construct his East Wing ballroom project and to do it with private funds," Leon said, "I have concluded that the National Trust is likely to succeed on the merits because no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have." Leon therefore concluded that "the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes its completion."
There is a straightforward fix for the problem that Leon identified. Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, yesterday announced a bill that would "authorize construction of the proposed new White House ballroom." If Trump had taken that route to begin with, he could have avoided the litigation that he claims is jeopardizing national security, and we would have been spared this particular Trumpian tantrum masquerading as a legal argument.
The post Defending the White House Ballroom, the DOJ Files a Trump Tantrum Masquerading As a Motion appeared first on Reason.com.