Скачать или смотреть US Judge Considers Legal Challenge to Trump’s $400 Million White House Ballroom

Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statutes that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Washington’s enduring struggle between presidential authority and historic preservation is back in the spotlight, as a federal judge weighs whether to temporarily halt former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to construct a sprawling new ballroom at the White House.
On Thursday, Richard Leon, a U.S. District Judge in Washington, is set to hear arguments from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which has renewed its bid to stop construction of the proposed $400 million project. The ballroom, envisioned as a 90,000-square-foot venue for state functions, is planned for the site of the now-demolished East Wing, a structure that stood for more than 120 years.
The preservation group filed suit in December, accusing Trump and multiple federal agencies of pushing the project forward without obtaining required approvals, conducting a full environmental review, or securing explicit authorization from Congress. At the heart of the legal challenge is the argument that federal law prohibits construction on federal parkland in Washington, D.C., unless Congress expressly permits it.
The White House and other federal defendants have urged the court to reject the injunction, framing the ballroom as part of a long tradition of presidential renovations. In court filings, the administration has pointed out that even the East Wing itself was a later addition, constructed during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Government lawyers have also argued that halting construction now would be unnecessary and premature. According to the administration, the ballroom’s design remains in flux, and major above-ground construction is not expected to begin until April, reducing the urgency for judicial intervention.
The legal showdown follows a recent public hearing held by the National Capital Planning Commission, marking the first time the ballroom proposal was openly discussed in a public forum. Last month, the White House formally submitted applications for the project to both the commission and the Commission of Fine Arts.
As the court considers whether to step in, the case underscores a broader American debate—how far a president can go in reshaping the nation’s most iconic residence, and where the line should be drawn between executive ambition, legal process, and the preservation of national history.