Democrats argue ballroom construction shouldn't continue without Congress' consent

Politics Congressional Democrats argue in filing that White House ballroom construction shouldn't proceed without Congress' consent By Arden Farhi Arden Farhi Washington bureau managing editor Arden Farhi is the managing editor for CBS News' Washington bureau. He has covered several presidential campaigns and the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. His executive producer credits include "The Takeout with Major Garrett" and the CBS News original podcast "Agent of Betrayal," and his work has been recognized with two Emmy Awards, a DuPont Award and a NY Festivals gold medal. Read Full Bio Arden Farhi May 28, 2026 / 4:16 PM EDT / CBS News Add CBS News on Google Roughly 150 Democratic lawmakers filed a legal brief Thursday in the ongoing White House East Wing litigation, asserting that construction cannot continue until the Trump administration obtains express consent from Congress."The President cannot undertake any construction at the White House—much less demolish one of its wings—without clear authorization from Congress, as well as an appropriation of funds to do so," lawyers for the Democrats wrote. The coalition of lawmakers is led by Reps. Robert Garcia of California, Jared Huffman of Colorado, and Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.They argue that the president has no right to demolish structures or to build new ones on White House grounds because "[t]he Constitution grants Congress exclusive control over all federal property," and it has yet to approve funding or an authorization for the project.The administration has contended that a statute permitting the White House to perform routine maintenance and repairs to the executive mansion provides a legal justification for the privately funded $400 million demolition and construction of the East Wing. Congress only appropriated about $2.5 million for such repairs. Congress "does not fund largescale construction projects with drop-in-the-bucket funding," the lawmakers wrote in the amicus...