Transcription
The lawsuit we've all been waiting for against Donald Trump's construction of the Golden Ballroom is finally here. Perhaps a little late in terms of preventing the demolition of the east wing of the White House, but in terms of stopping the construction of the ballroom, this lawsuit that was just filed just may do it.
There's an emergency hearing that has now been set for Monday before a federal judge by the name of Judge Richard Leon. This TTRO hearing is actually set for 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday of next week, not Monday. It's Tuesday of next week. And this would stop the White House ballroom construction.
Now, this lawsuit was filed by a very serious group. It's why this is really important. It was filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. That's a nonprofit chartered by Congress itself to support the preservation of historic US buildings and neighborhoods. So, pause right there. This isn't just some outside group or some nonprofit or some random group of individuals. This is the group that Congress chartered to do the analysis of these types of demolitions, constructions, alterations, and they are asking the US District Court for the District of Columbia block the ongoing construction until such time as the administration seeks congressional approval and consults the federal commissions and the public.
"No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever. Not Trump, not Biden, not anyone else," the group wrote in the lawsuit. "And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public an opportunity to weigh in."
So, in terms of what the causes of action are, this may sound familiar to you because I've done multiple videos suggesting that this exact type of lawsuit needs to be brought. They're citing violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and they're citing other uh uh processes that were not followed here in terms of going through the appropriate boards and the appropriate approvals.
You pull up the lawsuit right here and you can see it's the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the US and you'll see it was filed against the National Park Service, against Donald Trump, against uh the acting director of the National Park Service. You'll see the Department of the Interior, Doug Bergam, who is the Secretary of the Interior, the General Services Administration. Folks, this lawsuit was done right with pros who really understand this area of the law, and it really warms my heart that a lawsuit's finally been filed. I wanted one to be filed to block the demolition of the East Wing to begin with, but I guess better late than never because if we can stop this East Golden Ballroom thing that is 90,000 square foot, what it may even be bigger now, right? Whatever it is, you know, then after Trump leaves office, we can just rebuild the East Wing, make this White House look normal, not have this ridiculous ballroom. And I think the fact that you'll see this demolition site right there for the next three years will also be a reminder of how horrific this regime has been.
Let's just take a look at this lawsuit a little bit more. And it says the following. With its modest neocclassical design, the White House has served as a symbol of the United States for over 200 years. In late October 2025, at the direction of Donald J. Trump, the defendant in this action demolished the east wing of the White House in order to build a n,000 square foot ballroom on its site. They did so without seeking approval from Congress, without requesting review and approval from the federal commission's charged with oversight of development in the nation's capital. Without conducting the required environmental studies and without allowing the public any opportunity for input. Within days, the East Wing and its colonade, a version of which was first built on the site during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, was completely destroyed. The defendants did not stop with the demolition of the East Wing. Recent reporting describes the former location of the East Wing as a bustling construction site with dozens of workers driving piles, stockpiling materials, and amassing heavy machinery. Just last week, a towering construction crane was erected on the White House grounds. And Trump recounted that work on the ballroom was audible all night. Yet, the defendants still have not sought review of the ballroom project or obtained the necessary approvals. And the American public, to whom the White House belongs, still has had no chance to provide input.
No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever. Not Trump, not Biden, not anyone else. And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in. 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 defendants demolished the east wing and before they be began construction of the ballroom and secure the necessary approvals.
Plaintiff. The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States is a private charitable educational nonprofit corporation chartered by Congress in 1949. The purpose of the National Trust is to further the historic preservation policy of the United States and to promote the public's awareness of and ability to comment on any activity that might damage or destroy our nation's architectural heritage. The trust is ob obligated by its charter to facilitate public participation in the preservation of sites, buildings, and objects of national significance or interest in furtherance of those goals. The trust has brought historic preservation suits across and against numerous presidential administrations.
And it goes on to talk about how upon learning of defendants sudden unilateral and lawful decision to destroy the east wing of the White House. The National Trust immediately wrote to the National Park Service, the National Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts on October 21, 2025, urging the cessation of demolition and initiation of the review procedures for the plans for the ballroom project. The National Trust received no response. The National Trust brings this action to compel defendants to comply with procedural requirements that inform the public and protect the public's opportunity to comment on the ballroom.
And it goes on in this uh lawsuit to talk about how even during Donald Trump's first administration when there were issues like fixing the fencing that would have to go through all of these processes. So Trump knew that he had to go through these things. And now when it comes to demolishing the east wing, they just do a complete runaround.
I want to bring in Harry Litman from the Talking Feds YouTube channel, Talking Feds podcast, and Talking Feds Substack. And Harry, one of the things that's also mentioned in this lawsuit by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States is that Trump defrauded them and the public by making it seem like first he was never going to touch the structure of the White House with the ballroom. And then the statements from the White House was that they would get the necessary approvals, but then they didn't. And then they suddenly just tore it down. And what they're saying in this lawsuit is we tried to we went through all these steps to try to get people to respond. And no one even talked to us. So we have no choice but to bring this lawsuit. Now an emergency hearing is scheduled on Tuesday. Harry, this is big.
>> You know, it is big. And Ben, you and I really take it as our charge to lay out the intricacies of the law and first explain. But this one, if you'll forgive me, I got to go first to what an incredibly delicious lawsuit this is. It's got to make it's it's perfectly designed to have steam coming out of Trump's ears. It is his Xanadoo, his pet project. They went and started already and had the um the and what he's being told by the historic trust is that all these kind of woke regulations that I'm sure have dogged and bedeled him in his real estate career had to be done first. And it's like the the woke uh empire coming right after him and his pet project. You're totally right that they've got the record. He wanted absolutely to make it a fedom plea. We've seen him do that. Uh including, by the way, the mortgage fraud that you've reported on just that that's a Trump uh kind of standard mo run for make it too light. But they've got the goods to show we've done it. And Richard Leon, a strong smart judge, will see that.
Okay. So, first I just want to say what a what a really fun and it in a certain way. Of course, it's also important serious for all the reasons you say. Point two, there's an there's a law here of course the antiquities act and 1906 and the office of legal counsel in 1938 produced an opinion on exactly this point and said presidents can't just do this. Uh and that was, you know, that's considered the law of the executive branch. And guess what? A few months ago, the office of legal counsel produced a new one that just reverse field and said, "Oh, sure. Presidents can do this. No problem." And that, and by the way, under the Administrative Procedure Act, that kind of reversal counts against a um a defendant. And that we're going to have what is, you know, really looks like that's what's going to be at issue. Another sort of OLC, where did you come up with this one? Trump politicized kind of uh action. And then, you know, the third there's so many much to say, but the third point is there's just no answer to it. This is a decision for the people in one form or another. Maybe, you know, a president can legitimately kind of, you know, try to um tune up public opinion, etc., but it's the White House. It's the people's house. Who the hell does he think he is? And it, you know, it's such a kind of u monument, including the hole in the ground to Trump's arrogance and complete indifference to the public whose whose house this is. It is not his. So, you know, and there's more, but basically, man, oh man, it's just perfect. And and they're going to be arguing too late, too late, too late in front of Leon. And you know, this is the very entity. And then, of course, the fourth. What did he do? The same thing they always do. Just tell Congress, "Forget about it. We don't we don't care." And uh bring the cranes on that night. So, it's going to be good in terms of the overall legal themes of what he's doing. But I just love that it goes right to the heart of his dream project uh as the former uh failed bankrupt multi multi-time bankrupt uh real estate developer that he was.
You know, I don't like to uh do reports like this if I think it's gonna fail and it's not worth our coverage. The thing about this lawsuit is, you know, I've read every page of it and it is impeccably done. It's the right group to bring it in terms of standing. The group cites all of the laws that it's familiar with because, as I noted in my intro, it is responsible for helping the public bring input on these very laws. They were the ones who were ignored throughout the process. And you know, talk to us, Harry, about Judge Leon. He's a George W. Bushapp pointed judge from 2002, but he's demonstrated himself on cases like this. And all the DC judges, frankly, have been pretty good in terms of law and order. You may ideologically disagree with them, but at least as of now, these DC federal judges, even the Trump appointed ones from the first administration, like they were very law and order about the J6 cases, and there were some of their rulings about whether the documents, you know, constitute one of the violation, you know. So there are ways to quibble with them on the on the broader democracy issues, but tell us about Leon.
>> Sure. Look, the main thing to say about him, he's smart and he's law-abiding. This is the thing, a district court judge, and it should be the same in the DC circuit. There really is law here. It's the kind of law that uh makes Trump crazy that says presidents not only have to listen to Congress, they've got to do environmental impact statements and the like. But there's no way a an honest judge can just simply ignore that. You can see maybe, you know, the Supreme Court trying to give it short shrift. So, in that sense, yeah, they're and you know, they're going to they're going to have some claims to make. He'll take seriously. I I take your point that they're the right group, but you're going to see standing arguments, I think, from the administration. There's actually a that, you know, the trust that's their job, but that doesn't mean they're harmed. There is a still extent um standing opinion that I think um conservatives must detest, but it's there that says an environmental injury we can all even if it's just a little bit unshared counts for standing and that's exactly what this could be. So a fair kind of uh you know consideration of both standing law and you know administrative procedures act w should in fact impose a uh at least a freezing of the linebackers so that this can be considered. The thing that he's really at his weakest about they're going to point to oh well Andrew Jackson uh put in different uh curtains or what you know whatever. Uh but the thing he's really weakest on and judges will see is the just rushing ahead you as if he didn't doesn't want to have any scrutiny which I think is exactly right. So it really should be however it comes out ultimately in in a permanent injunction stopping the linebackers here and saying do the damn studies that shouldn't be a heavy lift. And you know now uh typically Trump has try has taken advantage of the fact that the wheels of justice grind slowly here they're on the other side because if they actually put these orders into place you know how long some of these things take to complete public to actually weigh in and you know who knows if he'll if he'll be around when the process actually runs its course.
>> Right and so what was great about what the national trust pointed out is they said look the statements from Trump and the White House said they were going to go through these steps. They said they were going to get the approvals and then all and that it wasn't going to touch the White House. So that's why we didn't do anything and then all of a sudden they lied and they did it and even after they did it, they tore it down so quickly.
>> We wrote that day. Yeah.
>> We were still trying to figure this out. Everybody's ignored us. So now we have no choice. And to your point though, the environmental injury though here is not hypothetical. Even though we acknowledge, you know, or or that the current case law is that there is standing on environmental injuries more broadly, but here specifically what actually transpired is why you need environmental impact reports because there doesn't seem to have been any asbestous mitigation at all. And that east wing was built during a time where asbestous was used as one of the main kind of a main construction input. And so people saw after the demolition asbestous clouds and so individuals and and because Trump refused to hire union workers for the project and rushed this, you know, union workers would have had a different process and would have had safety requirements, but he rushed into this with people who were just willing to tear it down and not give a crap apparently and and so much so that they shut down their websites when they were doing it because they didn't want transparency. People saw asbestous clouds in the area. So workers could have been exposed to asbestous. People in the White House could be exposed. People in the nearby community could have actually been exposed to asbestous and find out a little bit later on in life that they've contracted meloma or other forms of related cancers and are dying because there was no asbestous mitigation taking place. So like, and I did a whole video on the asbestous aspect of it because it seems to be there and asbestous groups have echoed what I I'm echoing, let me be clear, I'm echoing what asbestous groups are saying, but we're speaking in unison regarding the threats and the dangers. Harry, anything you want to say before we go?
>> Just it's so Trumpian, right? Make a terrible mess, maybe even endangering workers, and then just uh go away, you know, or not give a crap. It's it but in so many ways this is like even though we're we're fighting simultaneously some really really big issues and in the overall scheme of things it's important look it's the white house but uh the kind of symbolic import the the really you know giving it to Trump where he lives that to me is what makes this especially important to follow and you know he's got to be just completely uh digging out uh to find out about this lawsuit, especially if come Tuesday, Judge Lean says we have to stop everything. Can you know? I don't want to be the guy who has to carry that message to Donald Trump. Uh they've said we've got to stop. It's it's just too good. I'm It's just too good.
>> Yeah. No, it's a it's very Trumpy and both the >> the construction, the demolition, and the consequences are >> it's like Atlantic City or something except it's the people's house, right?
>> Yeah. It's our It's our house. It belongs to us. That's the thing about this. It's ours. Like it's like like you know, right?
>> Hit subscribe. Subscribe to Harry Litman's channel, Talking Feds YouTube, Talking Feds Substack, Talking Feds podcast. Subscribe to all the Talking Feds properties, and subscribe to the Minus Touch YouTube channel. Thanks, Eric.
>> Hey, thanks, Ben.
>> Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Philipki, add free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.