Transcript of Trump Gets Order He Feared on Ballroom

Donald Trump just got handed the ruling he feared regarding the construction of the ballroom. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled on a 2-1 basis that the ballroom is hereby blocked. Let me repeat that. Donald Trump's ballroom is hereby blocked. This affirms a district court ruling also blocking the construction of the ballroom. Now, the decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has been stayed for 14 days, meaning it's been temporarily paused for 14 days so Donald Trump can appeal to the Supreme Court. But we've been waiting on this decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to see if they would affirm what the lower federal court ruled blocking the construction of the ballroom. This is Donald Trump's nightmare. Now, as we always do here on the Midas Touch Network in a very diligent way, I want to go over with you the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling so you can understand their reasoning for yourself and why this decision is very, very strong. My view is that it is possible the Supreme Court will grant a stay and temporarily allow construction to continue. That's possible. Unclear if they'll do that.

We know the Supreme Court usually makes the wrong decision, but ultimately I believe the Supreme Court will affirm the decision that is made, that has been made by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal, and they will block the construction, or what's left of the construction. And that means you're just going to have this like junkyard-looking thing that will remain there for the next 2 years or so, and it will, I think, be symbolic of the stain that is this Trump presidency. So let's just go through this order in a very methodical way. You can see right here the case is the National Trust for Historic Preservation, um, and it is against the National Park Services at all, against Trump and against the Department of the Interior. You'll note that the decision was made on a 2-1 basis. You have Judge Millett and Judge Garcia. Uh, Judge Rao was the dissenting vote here and a 2-1 decision. And here's, here's the decision, very strongly worded: The White House is the people's house, and under the Constitution's Property Clause, Congress exercises plenary control over the building and its surrounding land. The White House is also the centerpiece of President's Park, a national park stewarded by the National Park Service.

According to the government, as the oldest public building in the District of Columbia, the White House is the crown jewel not just of President's Park, but also of Lafayette Square's National Historic Landmark District, a site listed for preservation in the National Register of Historic Places. It goes on and talks about how this site was selected for the White House, and then it goes on and says, each president is a temporary tenant, not the owner of the White House and its executive residence. The president has no and claims no constitutionally assigned authority over the property, which is designed and maintained for the use of all presidents, current and future, and for the American people. As the defendant National Park Service has explained, the White House is owned by the American people and stewarded by the National Park Service. It is more than the president's residence. It is a site for protest and national discourse about what it means to be America. And it says how, uh, any additions, subtractions, alterations of the White House has always been the role of Congress. Throughout history, Congress has appropriated funds both for the White House maintenance and for necessary physical improvements and additions.

Congress, for example, authorized the repair and reconstruction of the White House after the British attempted to burn it down during the War of 1812. The court goes on to say, we are aware of no instance in American history in which a president unilaterally and using privately collected funds demolished substantial portions of the White House that Congress authorized to be built and American taxpayers paid for until now. And then it goes through the history of what went down. Over just 3 days in October 2025, without undertaking promised consultation or obtaining Congress's Trump bulldozed the entire East Wing in order to construct a massive 90,000-square-foot ballroom paid for by private funds with no congressional oversight. Pause there. We now know a lot of this is actually being paid for by taxpayer funds and that we were all defrauded, and they said it would all be taken care of by private funds, but the demolition perhaps was all done by private funds. There is no factual dispute, the court says, at this juncture. In fact, the defendants admit that the erection of this enormous ballroom will have permanent adverse impacts on the cultural landscape of President's Park. Then it goes on to say how the National Trust for Historic Preservation is the plaintiff.

They brought this suit challenging the planned construction. The district court preliminarily enjoined the above-ground construction of the ballroom. That means the lower court, which is a federal district court, blocked the construction of the ballroom. At the same time, the injunction expressly accepts from its scope all below-ground construction, including construction of bunkers, bomb shelters, and military and medical infrastructure, as well as above-ground construction, quote, strictly necessary to cover secure and protect such facilities, to provide for the personal safety of the president and his staff, and to ensure the safety, security, and structural integrity of the White House, the White House grounds, and the below-ground construction site. You will recall that there were actually two injunctions that were issued by the district court. The first one was a blanket injunction blocking all construction in the East Wing. Then Donald Trump ran to the Court of Appeals and said, "My safety is being threatened. This ballroom is actually all about the bunker underneath and medical facilities that I need underneath and other top secret classified things that I'm building underneath. And so I need the ballroom as a shield. I need it, I need it. And you can't block the hospitals that I need for myself and the bunker that I need for myself." and the data centers and everything else we're building underneath.

We need that. So then the Court of Appeals said to the district court, can you clarify your order? The district court then clarified its preliminary injunction and said, we are enjoining everything above ground, the ballroom, anything where you think you're going to be throwing like parties or whatever the hell you think you're doing there, that needs congressional approval. All the below-ground stuff, um, you can still continue to build. You can build your bunker, you can build your hospital. And if it's above ground, you have to show that it is strictly necessary for basically your safety in the White House. And the court made clear the ballroom, as it's been described, is not that. The ballroom is not a shield. I, I'm not buying the ballroom as a drone port. That needs to stop. So this district court opinion is blocking pretty much everything above ground. Now, Trump, of course, is going to argue, no, no, no, it's all part of one, uh, you know, cohesive structure. But the, but the circuit court of appeal here basically isn't buying that either. They're affirming the district court, which didn't buy that it's all needed for the underground stuff, um, that the ballroom is something that requires congressional approval.

If you've been thinking about upgrading your home without spending a fortune, you gotta check out Article. I'm telling you, Article is awesome. I've added a few Article pieces to our home. What really stood out to me was the quality. Like, I got this coffee table, for example. Absolutely love it. From the moment everything arrived, you could tell the difference. The packaging was incredibly well done, the furniture felt sturdy and substantial, and the craftsmanship, from the smooth finish to the solid hardware, was immediately noticeable. I also love that Article makes it easy to create a space that actually looks put together. So whether your style is modern, coastal, or somewhere in between, everything's designed to mix and match effortlessly so You don't have to be an interior designer to end up with a great-looking home. The ordering process, so simple. Shipping was fast. And if you ever need their help, their customer care team is available 7 days a week, even offering free interior design services. That was huge for me personally. And with their 30-day satisfaction guarantee, you can shop with confidence. Article is offering our listeners $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more.

To claim, visit article.com/mitus. The discount will be automatically applied at checkout. That's article.com/mitus. Meidas for $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more.

Then this order goes on to say the defendants have appealed that preliminary injunction and requested a stay pending appeal. We affirm the grant of the preliminary injunction, meaning we agree with what the district court said, um, with its safety and security exception, and deny the motion to stay as moot. I mean, there's nothing that we need to say. We are affirming what the district court did. We agree with the district court, and we will be blocking the construction of the ballroom as well. You can build your hospital underneath and your bunker underneath. And then the court goes on to say, absent the injunction that's being ordered here, construction of the ballroom will inflict permanent and irreversible harm to the historic, architectural, and aesthetic interest of the National Trust members as well as the design of the President's Park. It goes on to say, and the White House and the surrounding area. The defendants themselves agree those irreversible harms will occur. As for defendant safety and security concerns, the district court modified the preliminary injunction to protect them during the pendency of the litigation. In addition, the Constitution assigns Congress, not the executive, the responsibility to decide decide whether proposed changes to the physical design of the White House may proceed, even where those changes are said to serve security interests.

The defendants have not shown that Congress delegated that authority to either the president or the National Park Service. Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for executive self-help. This holding has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable or not. As a matter of policy, this ruling does not even necessarily mean that defendants may not ultimately construct the ballroom. What it does mean is that defendants may not do so during the district court's expeditious litigation without securing Congress's authorization, as the Constitution and laws require. At this preliminary stage, the National Trust has shown compellingly that Congress has not ceded unfettered authority to the executive branch to dramatically redesign, reshape, and reconstruct the White House, the people's house, to fit a particular president's desires. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment issuing the modified preliminary injunction and vacate the court's administrative stay entered April 17th, 2026. We will stay this decision for 14 days to allow the defendants, if they choose, to seek Supreme Court review. Undoubtedly, they will seek Supreme Court review. Now, this is a 136-page order. I'm not gonna read all 136 pages.

Let me just point out a few more highlights to arm you with the knowledge that you need about this order. The Constitutional Property Clause, as it's called, which requires congressional approval, is described as such: Congress has exclusive authority to regulate the construction and demolition of White House structures. The Constitution's Property Clause vests Congress with plenary control over all real property that belongs to the United States, and it cites the United States Constitution: The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. It goes through the procedural background and it talks about how, uh, the Park Service under Trump, under the Department of Interior, chose without any explanation not to publish environmental assessments or findings showing that this would be incredibly harmful to the environment. It would be incredibly harmful to the landscape in Washington, DC. And Trump's Department of Interior National Park Service literally hid the environmental impact reports and environmental surveys, which their own report said this should not be built. I think that's an important fact also that came out in the discovery phase of the preliminary injunctions that were taking place.

And one other kind of point that, you know, if you're worried, well, Will Trump still try to argue that the ballroom is part of one coherent design and that he needs the ballroom in order for there to be— because the bunker and the hospital require the ballroom as its shield? The, the Circuit Court of Appeal addresses that. The district court strongly disagreed. The court first pointed out through all previous stages that defendants had repeatedly represented that the project's underground elements not anything above ground impacted national security, and that construction of the security bunker below ground and the ballroom above were independent of each other. Defendant's current claim that the ballroom and below-ground bunker construction have been an inseparable and integral whole all along is in direct conflict with defendant's prior representations to the court. In other words, They lie. They are liars.

Okay.

I thought it was important that we go through, in short, a 136-page ruling like that versus hearing me very emotionally describe the outcome of this. I want you to be armed with the ruling so you understand that there are judges who are in a diligent way going through facts, law, evidence, and applying them. And that's why I ultimately became a lawyer. That's why— that's what I loved about law school when I went to Georgetown. It's what I loved about being a litigator, and it's the analytical approach I bring to this network. It's what I really care about. That's not, to me, a Democratic thing, a Republican thing, an independent thing. It is a— it is a evidence-based thing. You tell me what you think. Hit subscribe. It's a fact-based thing. It's Law and Order. Tell me what you think. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers. We appreciate you. Before you go, our book WTF America is available for preorder now. It's the story of how we got here and how we fight our way back. To preorder, scan the QR code or click the link in the description. Let's do this.