Demolition Resumes While Lawsuit Moves Forward The administration restarted demolition of the historic East Wing on December 8, 2025, even as the National Trust for Historic Preservation sued for an injunction to halt the work until independent design reviews, environmental assessments, and congressional approval are completed [1][2]. Plaintiffs argue the demolition threatens a protected historic structure, while the government maintains the project proceeds under executive authority [1][2]. A federal judge is set to hear oral arguments on the competing claims [1].

National‑Security Claim Centered on Secret Service Requirements In a 36‑page brief filed on December 15, 2025, the administration asserted that the ballroom is essential to meet undisclosed national‑security requirements, offering to share classified details with the judge in private [2]. Deputy Director Matthew C. Quinn of the U.S. Secret Service testified that additional work on the former East Wing site is critical for agency safety and that a construction pause would impede its mission [1][2]. The brief frames the security rationale as overriding typical historic‑preservation statutes [2].

Construction Schedule Extends Into 2026 With Private Funding Underground work continues while foundation construction is slated to begin in January, and above‑ground building is not expected before April 2026 at the earliest [1][2]. The proposed ballroom will cover 90,000 sq ft, seat roughly 1,000 guests, and cost about $300 million, financed privately rather than with federal funds [1][2]. President Trump ordered the East Wing demolition in October 2025, positioning the project to be completed before his term ends in January 2029 [2].

Legal Arguments Focus on Presidential Authority vs. Statutory Review DOJ attorneys contend that the president’s authority to modify the White House supersedes the statutes cited by preservationists, labeling the Trust’s claims “moot” and future construction “unripe” [2]. The Trust argues that independent reviews and congressional oversight are legally required, a point the court will weigh during Tuesday’s hearing [1]. National Park Service liaison John Stanwich provided timeline details but did not address the statutory dispute [1].