President Donald Trump's administration insisted that there would be "national security implications" if the new White House ballroom was not built immediately.President Donald Trump's administration insisted that there would be "national security implications" if the new White House ballroom was not built immediately.

Trump ballroom lawyers say project essential for 'national security'

2 min read

President Donald Trump's administration insisted that there would be "national security implications" if the new White House ballroom was not built immediately.

In a motion opposing an injunction to halt the building of a massive White House addition, attorneys for the National Park Service warned there could be "an emergency situation" if the project were paused.

"Defendants have strong arguments for appeal, and the equities and public interest weigh overwhelmingly against suspending construction in the interim," the motion stated.

Defendants' attorneys warned that stopping ballroom construction would "leave an unsightly excavation site in President's Park indefinitely."

They also said that "halting construction would imperil the President and others who live and work in the White House."

According to the defendants' attorneys, the ongoing construction was "a hazard and complicates Secret Service operations."

"While Plaintiff has suggested that the Court could allow construction that is necessary for national security to continue, it is unworkable to distinguish between construction elements that are national security-related and those that are not," the attorneys claimed.

"This Court should stay any preliminary injunction pending appeal," the motion concluded. "The D.C. Circuit should have the opportunity to weigh in on these significant and novel issues of first impression before the President is ordered to stop work in the middle of a high-priority construction project that implicates national security, particularly at the behest of a third party with no legally cognizable interest in the White House grounds and no applicable cause of action to intrude into this novel matter of inter-branch relations."

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Tags:

You May Also Like

Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

The post Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. “It’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress,” writes Pipes. Getty Images Washington is addicted to taxing success. Now, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is floating a plan to skim half the patent earnings from inventions developed at universities with federal funding. It’s being sold as a way to shore up programs like Social Security. In reality, it’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress. Yes, taxpayer dollars support early-stage research. But the real payoff comes later—in the jobs created, cures discovered, and industries launched when universities and private industry turn those discoveries into real products. By comparison, the sums at stake in patent licensing are trivial. Universities collectively earn only about $3.6 billion annually in patent income—less than the federal government spends on Social Security in a single day. Even confiscating half would barely register against a $6 trillion federal budget. And yet the damage from such a policy would be anything but trivial. The true return on taxpayer investment isn’t in licensing checks sent to Washington, but in the downstream economic activity that federally supported research unleashes. Thanks to the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, universities and private industry have powerful incentives to translate early-stage discoveries into real-world products. Before Bayh-Dole, the government hoarded patents from federally funded research, and fewer than 5% were ever licensed. Once universities could own and license their own inventions, innovation exploded. The result has been one of the best returns on investment in government history. Since 1996, university research has added nearly $2 trillion to U.S. industrial output, supported 6.5 million jobs, and launched more than 19,000 startups. Those companies pay…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 03:26
Trump foe devises plan to starve him of what he 'craves' most

Trump foe devises plan to starve him of what he 'craves' most

A longtime adversary of President Donald Trump has a plan for a key group to take away what Trump craves the most — attention. EX-CNN journalist Jim Acosta, who
Share
Rawstory2026/02/04 01:19
Why Bitcoin Is Struggling: 8 Factors Impacting Crypto Markets

Why Bitcoin Is Struggling: 8 Factors Impacting Crypto Markets

Failed blockchain adoption narratives and weak fee capture have undercut confidence in major crypto projects.
Share
CryptoPotato2026/02/04 01:05