DOJ raises ‘national security’ concerns in legal fight over Trump ballroom
The construction for the ballroom on the White House’s East Wing as seen from the top of the Washington Monument, Nov. 17, 2025. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — Even before a federal judge has decided whether he’ll halt construction of the White House ballroom, the Trump administration has preemptively asked the judge to stay any injunction he might issue, warning that the project is “imperative for reasons of national security.”
The government’s overnight filing, entered just before the end of the day Monday, also says halting the construction would “leave an unsightly excavation site in President’s Park indefinitely.”
The administration’s stay motion comes a week-and-a-half after Judge Richard Leon publicly aired his deep skepticism of the government’s arguments that the president has the power to build a ballroom with private donations and without express authorization from Congress, comparing the plan to a “Rube Goldberg contraption.” Leon also said he expected the losing side of the case to appeal.
The Justice Department’s filing restates many of the arguments its lawyer made before Leon last month, including the administration’s view that it would be “unworkable” to allow security-related portions of the project to continue while work on the ballroom has been stopped.
“[A]s the Secret Service attested, halting construction would imperil the President and others who live and work in the White House,” the administration argues, citing a senior agency official who said in court papers last month that the current open construction site is, “in and of itself, a hazard and complicates Secret Service operations.”
The government now says it will submit a second classified declaration from the Secret Service that further explains why halting construction “will endanger national security and therefore impair the public interest.”
It’s widely believed the plan is to replace the bunker FDR had built underneath the East Wing — destroyed in the demolition.
The filing also casts the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s challenge to the project as one that presents questions judges have never grappled with before, including whether a 1912 statute prohibiting the construction of federal buildings absent congressional authorization applies to the president.
Acknowledging Leon’s own expectation of an appeal by the losing side, the Justice Department is preemptively asking him to press pause on a potential ruling against the government.
“The D.C. Circuit should have the opportunity to weigh in on these significant and novel issues of first impression before the President is ordered to stop work in the middle of a high-priority construction project that implicates national security,” the filing concludes.
Donald Trump Jr., co-founder of World Liberty Financial, during the Token2049 conference in Singapore, on Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2025. The crypto conference runs through Oct. 2. (Photographer: Suhaimi Abdullah/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s cryptocurrency firm, World Liberty Financial, sold a $500 million stake to a member of the Emirati royal family shortly before his inauguration last January, The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday, sparking concerns over a potential conflict of interest.
According to the Journal, which reviewed undisclosed corporate documents, a firm associated with Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, an Abu Dhabi royal who operates an enormous state investment fund, purchased a 49% stake in World Liberty, which is co-owned by Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and his family, just four days before the Trump administration swept into office.
Months later, the Trump administration agreed to supply the UAE with highly coveted American-made AI chips despite the prior administration’s concern that they may fall into the hands of the Chinese.
David Wachsman, a spokesperson for World Liberty Financial, acknowledged the existence of the deal in a statement to ABC News, but insisted that “neither President Trump nor Steve Witkoff had any involvement whatsoever in this transaction” and that “any claim that this deal had anything to do with the Administration’s actions on chips is 100% false.”
“We made the deal in question because we strongly believe that it was what was best for our company as we continue to grow. The idea that, when raising capital, a privately-held American company should be held to some unique standard that no other similar company would be held is both ridiculous and un-American,” the statement continued.
David Warrington, the White House counsel, told ABC News in a statement that “the President has no involvement in business deals that would implicate his constitutional responsibilities,” and that “President Trump performs his constitutional duties in an ethically sound manner and to suggest so otherwise is either ill-informed or malicious.”
But the Journal’s report adds yet another wrinkle to the U.S. decision to sell highly coveted advanced chips to the Emiratis.
As ABC News previously reported, shortly before the chips deal was announced, a UAE-backed investment firm called MGX announced last May that it would use a digital token minted by World Liberty Financial to finance a $2 billion investment in a crypto exchange Binance, a major boon for the firm.
Shiekh Tahnoon, who is the brother of the UAE’s president, also serves as MGX’s chairman.
The Biden administration declined to provide the UAE with the chips, which power some of the most sophisticated weapons on the planet, for fear they might be redirected into China.
Peter Wildeford, the head of policy at the AI Policy Network, a nonpartisan advocacy group, warned that could close the U.S.’s advantage in the AI race and compromise American security.
“If China gets their hands on these chips at scale, they would be able to launch cyberattacks against the U.S., they could build autonomous weapons that could find and sink our Navy ships — they could close the military technology gap that’s currently keeping us safe,” he said.
World Liberty has emerged as perhaps the most lucrative of the Trump family’s various business ventures, either in cryptocurrency or real estate. ABC News reported last year that the Trump family secured a roughly $5 billion windfall when trading of World Liberty’s digital token opened.
According to the Journal, Shiekh Tahnoon agreed to pay half of his investment in World Liberty up front. Based on the ownership structure of the company at the time, that meant a payment of as much as $187 million into the Trump family’s coffers on the eve of his return to office.
Ethics experts said the concept of a foreign government official secretly directing hundreds of millions of dollars to a company owned in part by the president has no known precedent — and raises a host of ethical and national security concerns.
“Maybe the President would have reached the same decision over the transfer of high techn [chips] to UAE if he wasn’t also getting money from them,” said Robert Weissman, the co-president of the advocacy group Public Citizen. “But we’ve got no way to know that, and we do know there was a lot of opposition inside the government to do exactly what he has OK’d.”
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly maintained that the president “only acts in the best interests of the American public,” and said that no conflict of interest exists in part because the president’s assets are held in a blind trust managed by his children. Typically, a blind trust would operate with an independent trustee.
“President Trump’s assets are in a trust managed by his children,” Kelly added. “There are no conflicts of interest.”
The Trump Organization did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Congressional Democrats leapt at new details in the report, characterizing the transaction as further evidence of alleged pay-for-play. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., alleged “mind blowing corruption,” in a post to X.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., issued a statement calling the deal “corruption, plain and simple.”
“Foreign countries are bribing our president to sell out the American people,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., claimed in a post to X.
Shortly before the chips deal was announced last May, a UAE-backed investment firm called MGX said it would use a digital token minted by World Liberty Financial to finance a $2 billion investment in a crypto exchange Binance. Tahnoon also serves as MGX’s chairman.
MGX is also one of the few companies with a major ownership stake in the new TikTok U.S. joint venture, with a 15% stake in the new entity.
Republican congressional candidate Brandon Herrera speaks during a campaign rally at the Constantino S Pizza restaurant on February 26, 2026, in Somerset, Texas. Brandon Bell/Getty Images
(TEXAS) — The Texas 23rd Congressional District race is projected to head to a runoff, as incumbent Rep. Tony Gonzales, who was accused of having an affair with a staffer who later died by suicide, and conservative activist Brandon Herrera both failed to receive more than 50% of the vote.
With 94% of the expected vote reporting Wednesday morning, Herrera holds just about a 1-point advantage over Gonzales (roughly 43% to 42%).
Gonzales and Herrera previously went head-to-head in the 2024 Republican primary and similarly advanced to a runoff. Gonzales ultimately won by just 400 votes.
Tuesday’s primary election came as Gonzales battles calls from some House Republicans to resign amid allegations that he engaged in an extramarital affair with a congressional aide who died by suicide last fall. Gonzales has denied the allegations of the affair with the aide, Regina Santos-Aviles.
Asked recently if he had an extramarital affair with Santos-Aviles, Gonzales said “what you have seen is not all the facts.”
Text messages, provided to ABC News by Santos-Aviles’ widower, appear to show Gonzales pursuing a relationship with the former staffer. ABC News has reached out to Gonzales for a request for comment on the text messages.
In February, Gonzales told ABC News that “Ms. Santos-Aviles was a kind soul who devoted her life to making the community a better place.”
ABC News has also confirmed that Gonzales has been under investigation by the Office of Congressional Conduct, which has already completed its probe. Due to its rules, the OCC can’t transmit a report against a member of Congress 60 days prior to an election.
The runoff election is scheduled for May 26, which is more than 60 days away from the primary election.
On Wednesday, the House Ethics Committee announced that it started an investigative subcommittee to look into the allegations against Gonzales.
Gonzales has notably lost many endorsements in his bid for reelection as calls for his resignation continue. He said last month that he is “not going to resign.”
President Donald Trump had endorsed Gonzales prior to the allegations. Since then, the White House has not responded to ABC News’ questions about whether the president still supports Gonzales.
In a post on X reacting to the news of a runoff, Gonzales began by thanking the president and looking forward to a “victorious May.”
In a reply to Gonzales post, Herrera retorted: “Are you seriously congratulating yourself for not winning your primary?”
Herrera, a Second Amendment activist and social media personality, has also faced his share of controversy, including accusations that his YouTube videos allegedly featured Nazi-related imagery. In response, Herrera wrote in a social media post that “I am not, nor have I never been a neo-Nazi.”
Both candidates have sought to align themselves closely with the president.
ABC News’ Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday significantly expanded the ability of candidates for political office to challenge rules governing an election, rolling back lower court decisions that had said a candidate needed to show concrete harm in order to bring a suit.
The 7-2 decision handed a victory to Republicans in Illinois who are contesting a state policy of counting timely cast but late-arriving mail ballots up to two weeks after Election Day.
It also promises to increase litigation nationwide ahead of the midterm election.
“Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the court’s opinion.
Roberts concluded that candidates — by virtue of running for office alone — should have the ability to bring legal challenges over rules governing how campaigns are conducted and votes are cast and counted.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan concurred with the court’s judgment in the case but on different grounds, saying candidates should need to show a “pocketbook injury” or other “actual or imminent injury” before being allowed to sue.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, accused the majority of breaking from settled law and “unnecessarily thrusting the judiciary into the political arena.”
“By carving out a bespoke rule for candidate-plaintiffs — granting them standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes, simply and solely because they are candidates for office — the Court now complicates and destabilizes both our standing law and America’s electoral process,” Jackson wrote.
