DOJ argues Trump could ‘bulldoze’ Statue of Liberty during White House ballroom hearing

The Trump administration’s controversial White House ballroom project faced scrutiny in a federal appeals court panel on Friday, where a lawyer for the Justice Department argued that judges could not stop the construction. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth boldly stated that even if President Trump wanted to “bulldoze” the Statue of Liberty, no one could sue to halt his actions.

The court, particularly Judge Patricia Millett, expressed skepticism about the administration’s stance that the project could proceed without judicial intervention. Despite more than 3 million pounds of steel rebar already on site, Roth insisted that halting the project would have been improper from the beginning.

The panel of judges grappled with the administration’s interpretation of decades-old laws that purportedly authorize the construction of the ballroom. While questioning whether President Trump had the authority to proceed without congressional approval, the panel also debated the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s right to challenge the project in court.

DOJ attorney Roth argued that the organization lacked standing to sue since the harm was already done with the demolition of the former East Wing. Judge Millett criticized the administration’s “move fast and break things” approach, questioning if moving quickly could render challenges non-redressable.

In a dramatic moment, Roth conceded that the same legal argument would apply even if the government attempted to rapidly demolish the Statue of Liberty. This assertion sparked audible gasps in the courtroom, highlighting the gravity of the situation.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, citing its congressional charter to protect historic sites, argued that it had the right to sue to block the construction. President Trump publicly attacked a board member of the organization involved in the lawsuit overnight, further escalating tensions.

Despite the administration’s claims, Judge Millett remained skeptical of the arguments presented, particularly regarding the standing of those impacted by the project. The court also questioned the broad authority granted by the statutes cited by the administration, with one judge noting that they only allowed for the maintenance and upkeep of the White House, not major construction projects.

The ongoing legal battle over the White House ballroom project underscores the complex interplay between presidential authority, historic preservation, and judicial oversight. As the case continues to unfold, the outcome will have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary. The issue at hand revolves around the construction of a ballroom on the White House grounds and whether the Office of the Executive Residence has the authority to manage such a project on behalf of the National Park Service. Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, has raised questions about the legitimacy of the Office’s role in this matter.

During the court proceedings, Rao pointed out a potential gap in the argument regarding the Office’s independence in managing the construction. She also expressed doubts about the National Trust’s standing to file a lawsuit against the project.

On the other hand, the Justice Department argued that halting the construction of the ballroom would pose a significant national security risk. According to the Department, the new ballroom is essential for updating protective features to withstand modern threats, such as drones and other advanced methods of attack. The construction project aims to create a highly secure space where the president and government leadership can seek refuge in case of an emergency.

The Trump administration is seeking to overturn a lower court’s ruling that deemed the construction of the ballroom to be beyond the president’s authority. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had ordered a halt to the construction, but an appellate panel temporarily stayed this decision, allowing the project to continue.

The ongoing legal battle raises important questions about the balance between architectural preferences and national security concerns. It remains to be seen how the appellate judges will ultimately rule on this contentious issue.