A leading historic preservation organisation has taken legal action against Donald Trump in an effort to stop construction of a proposed ballroom at the White House, arguing that the project violates federal law and bypasses required oversight.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed the lawsuit in federal court, asking a judge to halt the project until it undergoes independent reviews and receives approval from Congress. According to court filings, the planned ballroom would cost an estimated 300 million dollars and would be almost twice the size of the White House before the East Wing was removed.

Legal challenge over oversight and public input

In its complaint, the non profit organisation said the White House is protected under federal law and cannot be altered without formal review. The group argues that no president has the authority to demolish parts of the building or construct large new structures without allowing the public and relevant experts to weigh in.

According to the lawsuit, federal statutes governing development in Washington DC place ultimate authority with Congress, regardless of whether a project is publicly or privately funded. Legal experts note that this requirement exists to protect nationally significant landmarks from unilateral changes.

Criticism from preservation and design experts

Meanwhile, the proposal has triggered opposition from preservationists, architects, and historians, many of whom say the ballroom would permanently alter the character of the White House. Some critics have also questioned the scale of the project, describing it as inconsistent with the building’s historic design.

Architectural historian Thomas Carter told US media outlets that major presidential renovations typically follow a careful process involving congressional oversight and professional review. He said that bypassing those steps raises concerns about precedent for future administrations.

White House response

Responding to the lawsuit, White House spokesman David Ingle said President Trump is acting within his legal authority to renovate and modernise the White House. He added that previous presidents have made changes to the building during their time in office.

However, Mr Ingle did not say whether the administration intends to consult Congress or pause construction while the legal challenge proceeds.

Part of broader White House changes

The ballroom proposal is part of a wider set of changes introduced since Mr Trump returned to office in January. According to reports, he has added gold themed decor throughout the Oval Office and replaced the Rose Garden lawn with a paved patio, a design similar to the outdoor areas at his Mar a Lago estate in Florida.

While alterations to the White House are not unusual, historians say the current plans are the most extensive since President Harry Truman’s renovation in the late 1940s. Unlike the current project, Truman’s overhaul was approved and funded by Congress and overseen by a bipartisan commission that included engineers and arts experts.

Funding does not remove legal obligations

Mr Trump has said the ballroom will be paid for with private funds, including his own contributions. However, legal scholars point out that private financing does not exempt a project from federal rules when construction takes place on government property.

As the case moves forward, the court will be asked to decide whether the project can proceed without congressional approval or whether work must stop until the required legal and public review processes are completed.