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.
Workers demolish the facade of the East Wing of the White House on October 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Demolition continued Wednesday at the White House to make way for President Donald Trump’s $250 million ballroom, but the renovation is far more extensive than he has let on.
While Trump had said back in July that the ballroom would not “interfere” with the existing building — would be “near it but not touching it” — a White House official confirmed to ABC News that the “entirety of the East Wing will be modernized.”
The extent of the demolition was first reported by The Washington Post, which published new photographs on Tuesday showing bulldozers razing most of the East Wing — what had been home to the first lady’s office, the White House military office and more.
A higher, seven-foot fence was visible Wednesday around the East Wing site, helping to block the demolition from public view.
A White House official said the East Wing was being “modernized” from its 1902 and 1942 constructions to support the ballroom project and the future home of the East Wing. The scope and size of the project, the official said, has always been subject to change as the process developed.
The Office of the First Lady and other East Wing components have been relocated on the White House complex within the White House and Eisenhower Executive Office Building, according to a White House official.
Trump has long wanted to build a ballroom at the White House akin to that at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Mock-ups for the 90,000-square foot ballroom were unveiled this summer, and Trump said the build would be paid for by him and unidentified donors. The administration has said little since about who exactly is funding the project, sparking ethical and legal questions.
Trump indicated earlier this week that once the project is done, people would be able to walk directly from the White House East Room into the ballroom, suggesting the construction will touch the actual White House — something Trump himself had previously said would not happen.
The construction this week kicked off a torrent of criticism.
Former first lady Hillary Clinton weighed in on Tuesday, writing on X that Trump is “destroying” the White House.
“It’s not his house. It’s your house. And he’s destroying it,” Clinton wrote.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation sent a letter to White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf, whom Trump also appointed to head the National Capital Planning Commission, an executive branch agency that provides planning guidance and reviews development proposals, voicing concerns about the demolition and ballroom plan, calling for a pause.
“While the National Trust acknowledges the utility of a larger meeting space at the White House, we are deeply concerned that the massing and height of the proposed new construction will overwhelm the White House itself — it is 55,000 square feet — and may also permanently disrupt the carefully balanced classical design of the White House with its two smaller, and lower, East and West Wings,” wrote Dr. Carol Quillen, the trust’s president.
The nonprofit organization urged the administration “to pause demolition until plans for the proposed ballroom go through the legally required public review processes, including consultation and review by the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, and to invite comment from the public.”
Plans for the ballroom have not yet been submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission, despite demolition being already underway. White House official confirmed to ABC News that the White House still intends to submit plans for the build to the commission.
The White House on Tuesday defended the renovations and the construction of the new ballroom in a lengthy press release stating the project is “a bold, necessary addition that echoes the storied history of improvements and additions from commanders-in-chief to keep the executive residence as a beacon of American excellence.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, appearing on Fox News “Jesse Watters Primetime” on Tuesday, called the backlash “fake outrage” and said presidents past have also made changes to the White House.
“He is the builder-in-chief, in large part he was elected back to this People’s House because he is good at building things. He has done it his entire life, his entire career,” Leavitt said. “And construction is a process. At the end, the East Wing which is an entirely separate structure from the Executive Mansion you see behind me, will be more modern and beautiful than ever. And then on top of that, the White House is going to have a big, beautiful ballroom for generations of Americans to come.”
But according to a report from the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department (located next to the renovation site) has instructed employees not to share photos of the demolition.
Trump, hosting Senate Republicans for lunch on Tuesday at his newly-renovated Rose Garden Club, celebrated the ballroom build.
“You probably hear the beautiful sound of construction in the back. You hear that? Oh, that’s music to my ears,” Trump said. “I love that sound. Other people don’t like it, I love it.”
ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — As of Monday, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his government will be added to the U.S. State Department’s list of the world’s most dangerous terrorist organizations.
Declaring Maduro the head of a foreign terrorist organization — instead of a corrupt dictatorial regime, as the U.S. government has regarded him for years — is an unprecedented move that President Donald Trump insists gives him the authority to strike inside Venezuela, as some outside experts question his rationale.
What happens next is far from clear, in part because Trump hasn’t said what he wants to happen. When asked by a reporter at an Oval Office press conference on Nov. 17 what Maduro could do to placate the U.S., Trump called it a “tricky” question.
But some experts said that forcing Maduro from power without a long-term plan could leave a power vacuum, potentially giving way to violence and chaos.
“Any post-Maduro government will live or die based on the amount of security cooperation the United States is willing to provide,” said Henry Ziemer, an associate fellow with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told ABC News.
Here are three things to know about what could happen next:
Trump could use military strikes inside Venezuela and force Maduro to flee.
After weeks of lethal military strikes on suspected drug vessels, the State Department this week told Congress that Maduro wasn’t just a foreign leader but the head of “Cartel de los Soles.”
Experts told ABC News the term, which translates to “Cartel of the Suns,” is a general reference to corrupt Venezuelan officials, including those involved in the drug trade. The Cartel de los Soles has not been listed on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s annual National Drug Threat Assessment or in the United Nation’s World Drug Report.
The designation becomes official on Monday following a seven-day notice period to lawmakers, putting Maduro on the same list as terror networks like al-Qaida and the Houthi rebel group in Yemen. Maduro denies the allegation, instead calling for diplomacy.
Trump suggested the label gives him the authority to launch strikes, although legal experts told ABC News that claim is dubious. According to the Congressional Research Service, the list primarily serves “the purpose of imposing financial sanctions, immigration restrictions, or other penalties in pursuit of law enforcement or national security goals.”
In an interview with the right-wing One America News Network, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth insisted the decision was about giving the president greater military options.
“Nothing’s off the table, but nothing’s automatically on the table,” he said.
Maduro could placate Trump, but there’s no clear path for that.
While labeling Maduro a terrorist leader, Trump also said he’s open to negotiations. But when asked if Maduro could do anything to get Trump to back down, the president wasn’t clear.
“You know, the question’s a little bit tricky,” Trump said Nov. 17 in the Oval Office. “I don’t think it was meant to be tricky. It’s just that, look, he’s done tremendous damage of our country, primarily because of drugs,” and “the release of prisoners into our country has been a disaster.”
Some U.N. officials and regional experts said that Venezuela facilitates and profits off the drug trade, but that drug smuggling routes in the Caribbean are primarily headed for Europe. The majority of drugs coming into the U.S. enter through Mexico and legal ports of entry, they say.
Maduro has denied profiting from the drug trade.
Some independent experts also said Trump’s claim that Venezuela is emptying its prisons and sending people with mental illnesses to the U.S. is not supported by evidence. According to the Migration Policy Institute, some 770,000 Venezuelan immigrants live in the United States — the vast majority arriving after fleeing Maduro’s authoritarian regime and the ongoing economic crisis there.
Trump’s endgame makes more sense when you consider the bigger picture, some conservatives say. The U.S. has long seen Maduro as a source of chaos and instability in the region, but has not been willing to try to force a change.
“I think what we’re doing sends a message to leaders across the hemisphere about the U.S. being very serious about protecting the American people against these narco threats and the weaponization of these illicit activities and criminal activities,” Andres Martinez-Fernandez, senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security, told ABC News.
“I do think you’re starting to see. … other governments in the region that are more forward-leaning and more aligned with the United States,” he said.
US strikes could trigger chaos inside Venezuela, experts warn.
David Smolansky, who is deputy director of international affairs for the Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, told ABC News that the opposition, which is in exile, is ready to “provide Venezuelans an orderly and democratic transition.”
“What we are focused on is to be ready when the transition begins,” he said, citing the 2024 election of Edmundo Gonzalez with 67% of the vote. “We’ve been ready for a while.”
A new Venezuelan government, though, would inherit serious immediate challenges. Analysts said a new government would need security, help in reforming Venezuela’s armed forces and intelligence support from the U.S.
Zeimer said one major challenge would be convincing people throughout the Venezuelan government that they will be safe without Maduro. And part of their calculation will be how successful a new regime could be.
“Maduro is nothing if not wily and adaptable,” Zeimer said. “He’s been able, time after time, to get the United States to negotiate, and use negotiations, basically as a way to release the pressure and commit to things that he has no plans on following through with and hang on to power.”
“I think he is still definitely trying to do that,” he added. “It is telling that he’s yet to flee.”
President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office at the White House on October 06, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump and other cabinet secretaries spoke on an executive order that will increase the development and production of Alaska’s natural resources. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images) President Trump Speaks In The Oval Office
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump says he’d consider declaring an “insurrection” inside the United States, accusing Democratic governors and mayors of preventing the federal government from enforcing immigration laws and turning their cities in “war zones.”
“Chicago’s a great city where there’s a lot of crime,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday. “And if the governor can’t do the job, we’ll do the job. It’s all very simple.”
Invoking the Insurrection Act would unfurl extraordinary presidential powers to use military force in American cities in a manner not used since the Civil Rights Movement.
It also would potentially pit troops from a southern Republican-run state against northern Democratic-run cities and states.
Some 200 National Guard troops from Texas were preparing to deploy to Chicago this week, administration officials told a federal judge this week who agreed not to block the deployments for now.
“That escalates the situation quite a bit,” Katherine Kuzminski, director of studies at the Center for a New American Security, said of the deployment of Texas troops to Chicago.
“It creates a tinderbox,” she said.
Under the law, the president can use military troops to protect federal buildings and federal employees. But they can only conduct domestic law enforcement if they remain under control of the state’s governors.
A major exception to those constraints is the Insurrection Act, which Trump said he’d be open to invoking if people were getting killed and if Democrats running states like Illinois and Oregon “were holding us up.”
Signed into law in 1807 by President Thomas Jefferson, that law allows the president to deploy military troops inside the U.S. to act as law enforcement and quell an “insurrection” that threatens a state or its residents.
“If I had to enact it, I do,” Trump said. “If people were being killed, and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure I’d do that.”
In an interview on Newsmax, Trump said he wouldn’t invoke the law if he didn’t have to. At the same time, he told the outlet what is happening is “pure insurrection.”
Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker has called allegations of civil unrest in his state “complete bs” and pushed back on the arrival of Texan troops as an “unconstitutional invasion of Illinois by the federal government.”
If Trump declares an insurrection in Illinois, it would mark the first time a president has invoked the law without a governor’s consent since Lyndon Johnson did so to protect civil rights activists in 1965 in Alabama.
Since then, the law has been invoked at a governor’s behest, including in 1992 during riots in California following the acquittal of police officers accused of beating motorist Rodney King.
On Monday, both Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott and senior Trump aide Stephen Miller echoed Trump’s accusations that Chicago was a “war zone” and blamed Democratic politicians as refusing to enforce federal laws.
“We have local states refusing to enforce the law, and we have chaos,” Abbott said in an interview on Fox News with host Sean Hannity.
Miller, who has led Trump’s push for mass deportations inside the United States, directly accused local officials of trying to undermine the federal government.
“There is an effort to delegitimize the core function of the federal government of enforcing our immigration laws and our sovereignty,” he said in an interview on CNN on Monday.
“It is domestic terrorism. It is insurrection,” Miller added.
Kuzminski with the Center for a New American Security said the president has broad authority to invoke the Insurrection Act. But after Democratic-led states inevitably sue in court, a judge would likely press Trump to provide evidence that an insurrection has occurred.
In the case of Illinois, it’s possible the Trump administration would point to the “rebellion” as coming from Pritzker and other Democratic politicians themselves.
Pritzker said at a news conference on Monday that he believes invoking the Insurrection Act is part of Trump’s plan.
“The Trump administration is following a playbook — cause chaos, create fear and confusion, make it seem like peaceful protesters are a mob by firing gas pellets and tear gas canisters at night,” Pritzker told reporters.
“Why? To create the pretext for invoking the Insurrection Act so that he can send military troops to our city,” he added.
Kuzminski said there’s a reason why a federal government should move cautiously when thinking about unleashing military might in American cities.
“We are proud of the fact that we train the world’s most lethal fighting force,” Kuzminski said. “And that’s why we have such firm boundaries on their use in law enforcement.”
ABC News’ Katherine Faulders and Peter Charalambous contributed to this report.
