A historic preservation group said Monday it will not withdraw its lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s proposed White House ballroom, rejecting arguments from the Justice Department that the legal fight poses a threat to presidential security.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation said it intends to continue its case, even after federal officials urged it to drop the challenge following a weekend shooting near the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
“We are not planning to voluntarily dismiss our lawsuit, which endangers no one and which respectfully asks the Administration to follow the law,” said Carol Quillen, the organization’s president.
The dispute centers on the Trump administration’s plan to construct a large ballroom on White House grounds, a project officials say would provide a secure venue for hosting major events without requiring the president to travel off-site.
The proposal has taken on new urgency after a gunman opened fire Saturday near the Correspondents’ Association dinner at the Washington Hilton, prompting renewed debate over security at high-profile gatherings attended by government leaders.
Although the annual dinner is organized by journalists and not the federal government, Trump and his allies have pointed to the incident as evidence that a permanent White House event space is needed.
The preservation group’s lawsuit argues that the ballroom project cannot proceed without congressional approval, raising questions about executive authority and compliance with federal planning and historic preservation laws.
Justice Department attorneys, however, have framed the legal challenge as a direct threat to national security. In a court filing Monday, the department called the lawsuit “frivolous” and argued it “greatly endangers the lives of all Presidents, current and future.”
The filing also claimed that the planned ballroom — equipped with advanced security features — would have prevented an incident like Saturday’s shooting.
Legal experts say the case could test the balance between executive branch authority to modify the White House complex and Congress’s role in overseeing federal construction projects.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the ballroom is necessary for both safety and functionality, describing it as a secure alternative to off-site venues.
White House spokesman Davis Ingle said the facility would be “the safest ballroom anywhere in the world,” citing features such as bulletproof glass, drone detection systems and reinforced materials.
In a letter to the preservation group, Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate argued that the project is essential to protect the president and staff.
“When the White House ballroom is complete, President Trump and his successors will no longer need to venture beyond the safety of the White House perimeter to attend large gatherings,” Shumate wrote.
The preservation group acknowledged the importance of security but maintained that the administration must comply with legal requirements before proceeding.
Quillen said the organization supports the idea of expanded event space but emphasized that congressional approval is required.
“Building it lawfully requires the approval of Congress, which the Administration could seek at any time,” she said.
The group also noted that construction is currently allowed to continue while the case proceeds, with oral arguments scheduled for June 5.
The clash reflects broader tensions between security concerns and legal constraints, particularly as political violence has heightened fears around protecting national leaders.
Presidents routinely travel to attend events across the country and abroad, and security planning for such appearances has long been a core responsibility of federal agencies.
Saturday’s shooting has intensified scrutiny of how and where major gatherings involving top officials should be held — and whether permanent infrastructure changes are necessary.
At the same time, critics argue that invoking security concerns to bypass legal processes could set a precedent for executive overreach.
The case is expected to continue before a federal appeals court in Washington, with oral arguments scheduled for early June.
Justice Department attorneys have signaled they will continue to press for dismissal, while the preservation group says it will pursue the case to ensure the project complies with federal law.
The outcome could determine not only the future of the proposed ballroom but also how similar projects at the White House are reviewed and approved.
