National Trust for Historic Preservation sues to try to stop White House ballroom construction
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The National Trust for Historic Preservation, the privately funded nonprofit designated by Congress to protect historic sites, is suing in an attempt to stop the construction of the White House ballroom.
In a complaint filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for DC, the organization is asking for the project to be stopped until it completes the federal review process standard for federal building projects and seeks public comment on the proposed changes.
“No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever—not President Trump, not President Biden, and not anyone else,” the complaint said. “And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in.”
“President Trump’s efforts to do so should be immediately halted, and work on the Ballroom Project should be paused until the Defendants complete the required reviews—reviews that should have taken place before the Defendants demolished the East Wing, and before they began construction of the Ballroom—and secure the necessary approvals,” the complaint continued.
In its complaint, the Trust argues that the project has not been filed with the National Capital Planning Commission as required by law; that it began without an environmental assessment or impact statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act; and that the construction was not authorized by Congress.
The White House has continued to defend the construction of the ballroom.
“President Trump has full legal authority to modernize, renovate, and beautify the White House — just like all of his predecessors did,” Davis Ingle, a White House spokesperson, said on Friday.
The White House has previously attacked the Trust, saying it is run by “a bunch of loser Democrats and liberal donors who are playing political games.”
It has also argued that the nature of the project on the White House grounds does not require congressional approval, an assertion the Trust is challenging in its lawsuit.
News of the lawsuit was first reported by the Washington Post.
U.S. President Donald Trump announced the creation of the “Trump-class” battleship during a statement to the media at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate on December 22, 2025 in Palm Beach, Florida. Trump announced the new class of ship will become the centerpiece of his “Golden Fleet” program to rebuild and strengthen the U.S. shipbuilding industry. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
(FLORIDA) — President Donald Trump is continuing to ratchet up pressure on Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro, saying it would be “smart” for him to step down and warning him not to play “tough.”
Trump, taking reporter questions at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida on Monday evening, was directly asked if his administration’s ultimate goal in Venezuela is to force Maduro from power.
“Well, I think it probably would. I can’t tell him. That’s up to him what he wants to do. I think it would be smart for him to do that. But again, we’re going to find out,” Trump said.
At the same time, Trump issued a warning to Maduro.
“He can do whatever he wants, it’s alright, whatever he wants to do. If he wants to do something, if he plays tough, it’ll be the last time he’s ever able to play tough,” Trump said.
The president added, “We have a massive armada for him. The biggest we’ve ever had and by the far the biggest we’ve ever had in South America.”
The U.S. has built up its military presence in the region in recent weeks, with 15,000 U.S. troops and several warships standing ready in the Caribbean.
Trump last week also ordered what he called a “complete blockade” of all sanctioned oil tankers going into and out of Venezuela, targeting the government’s main source of revenue.
Maduro said Venezuela would continue to trade oil in the face of the “blockade,” and has said regime change “will just not happen, never, never, never.”
Separately, since September, the U.S. military has launched dozens of strikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean allegedly carrying drugs. These strikes have killed more than 100 people, according to numbers provided by the administration. The strikes have several raised legal questions from lawmakers of both parties and legal experts, though the administration’s justified the use of lethal force as part of what it calls its “war” on drug cartels.
“We’ll be starting the same program on land,” Trump said on Monday. “The land is much easier.”
While Trump continued to tease that land strikes on Venezuela, he also took it a step further and threatened land strikes on other countries.
“Anywhere drugs are pouring in. Anywhere, not just Venezuela,” Trump said when asked if he was only referring to Venezuela land strikes.
ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
U.S. President Donald Trump addresses the nation from the Diplomatic Room of the White House on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump would be “addressing the country about all of his historic accomplishments over the past year, and maybe teasing some policy that will be coming in the new year, as well.” (Photo by Doug Mills – Pool/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The White House announced Thursday that the board at the Kennedy Center, which President Donald Trump now chairs and is newly filled with his appointees, has voted “unanimously” to rename the building the “Trump-Kennedy Center.”
“I have just been informed that the highly respected Board of the Kennedy Center, some of the most successful people from all parts of the world, have just voted unanimously to rename the Kennedy Center to the Trump-Kennedy Center, because of the unbelievable work President Trump has done over the last year in saving the building,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote in a social media post.
“Not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation. Congratulations to President Donald J. Trump, and likewise, congratulations to President Kennedy, because this will be a truly great team long into the future! The building will no doubt attain new levels of success and grandeur,” Leavitt continued.
The move raises legal questions, as it appears congressional approval would be needed to make the name change.
David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, told ABC News that federal statute (Title 20 of the U.S. Code, section 76i) designates the building “the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
“I suppose he could rename some parts of the building, but he cannot rename the building itself or the center itself,” Super said.
Back in February, Trump fired multiple members from the Kennedy Center’s Board of Trustees and became its chairman. Several of his administration officials were then installed as board members — including White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, second lady Usha Vance, deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, and U.S. Ambassador to India Sergio Gor.
When asked about the board’s vote to rename the center during an executive order signing in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump said he was “honored” and “surprised.”
“Well, I was honored by it. It’s board, it’s a very distinguished board, most distinguished people in the country. And I was surprised by it. I was honored by it,” Trump said.
While Trump and the White House said the vote was unanimous, Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, who sits on the Kennedy Board of Trustees as one of its ex-officio members, said she was muted on the call during the vote and could not voice her opposition to the name change.
Beatty told reporters that “a lot of time was spent praising the president” before a proposal was made to rename the building.
“At that point, I said, ‘I have something to say,’ and I was muted, and as I continued to try to unmute, to ask questions and voice my opposition to this, I received a note saying that I would not be unmuted,” Beatty said. “I was not allowed to vote because I was muted. I would not have supported this.”
Beatty and Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree, the ranking member on the House Appropriations subcommittee on the interior, said they were looking at ways to push back on the change in Congress.
“We also believe this is illegal. This is our living monument to JFK,” Pingree said.
Though Trump said he was “surprised,” he has repeatedly referred to the center as the “Trump-Kennedy Center” before the change was announced on Thursday.
“On Dec. 5 of this year, the 2026 FIFA World Cup draw will take place at the Kennedy Center. Some people refer to [it] as the Trump-Kennedy Center, but we’re not prepared to do that quite yet– maybe in a week or so,” Trump said on August 22.
Trump on Thursday said his administration “saved” the historic arts and culture center.
“We’re saving the building. We saved the building. The building was in such bad shape — physically, financially, in every other way,” he said. “And now it’s very solid and very strong.”
Despite Leavitt and Trump’s claims that he has rescued the building financially, the Washington Post reported in late October that ticket sales have plummeted since Trump’s takeover.
Several high-profile artists and shows have canceled appearances at the venue since Trump became its leader, including actress Issa Rae and the Broadway show “Hamilton.”
ABC News’ John Parkinson contributed to this report.
Rebecca Slaughter, commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), during a House Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, DC, July 13, 2023. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday appeared likely to allow President Donald Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission purely for policy reasons, likely rolling back 90 years of legal precedent that had prevented at-will removal of independent agency officials in a decision that would expand presidential power.
The case could transform the federal government and effectively end the independence of some two dozen bipartisan agencies that Congress had designed to be insulated from political interference and direct White House supervision.
All six of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices indicated during oral arguments in the case, Trump v. Slaughter, that a president should have absolute control over the leadership of any government body carrying out executive functions, such as rulemaking and law enforcement.
They pointed to Article II of the Constitution which says, “the executive power shall be vested in a President” and that he alone “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
Such a ruling would overrule or substantially limit a unanimous 1935 Supreme Court decision involving the FTC — Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. — which had affirmed limits on a president’s ability to fire members of the commission only for cause.
“Humphrey’s Executor is just a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was,” Chief Justice John Roberts said bluntly.
Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the earlier Supreme Court had egregiously erred, opening the door for Congress to circumvent the president altogether if it wanted to.
Could every Cabinet office “be headed by a multi-member commission whose members are not subject to at-will removal by the president?” he asked Amit Agarwal, the attorney representing the terminated FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.
The Supreme Court’s three liberal members vigorously defended the agencies as they were designed by Congress — and signed into law by prior presidents — as legitimate sentinels of the public interest and regulatory continuity across administrations.
“You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Trump administration Solicitor General John Sauer.
Justice Elena Kagan said she worried about a slippery slope.
“The result of what you want is that the president is going to have massive unchecked, uncontrolled power not only to do traditional execution [of the laws] but to make law,” Kagan said, referring to the agencies’ regulatory authority.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned of the “danger” in allowing a president to replace members of independent commissions with “loyalists and people who don’t know anything” about the agency’s expertise.
Independent agencies have regulated American monetary policy and stock trades, transportation systems and election campaigns, consumer product safety and broadcast licenses historically overseen by subject-matter experts from both parties.
“If the petitioners get their way,” said Agarwal, “everyone is on the chopping block.”
Few of the conservatives seemed concerned about the consequences.
“It’s been suggested if we rule for you, the entire government will fall,” Alito told Sauer.
“The sky will not fall. In fact, the entire government will live with accountability,” Sauer replied.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the justices most often in the majority camp on the Supreme Court’s decisions, made a point of downplaying the impact of potential fallout.
“Overruling or narrowing Humphrey’s won’t affect the existence of these agencies,” he pointed out. Sauer agreed.
Kavanaugh also suggested the Supreme Court is likely to carve out two exceptions to a ruling that would give a president greater control: the Federal Reserve Bank, which is also an independent agency, and administrative courts, such as the tax court, which are operated out of the executive branch.
Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case involving Trump’s unprecedented attempt to fire a Democratically-appointed member of the Federal Reserve, Lisa Cook. She currently remains on the job after the justices declined Trump’s request to stay a lower court decision.
The outcome in the Slaughter case will determine whether or not there will be any Democrats left on the FTC or other regulatory bodies, and whether any of the other independent agencies will be truly “independent” any longer.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June 2026.
