Their Own Petar

 Trump’s ballroom is halted again. And again, Trump’s lawyers did it to themselves:

For the reasons that follow, I will further clarify and amend my Order to stop only above-ground construction of the planned ballroom. My Amended Order does not, however, stop below-ground construction of national security facilities, work necessary to provide for presidential security, and construction necessary to protect and secure the White House and the construction site itself.

First, limiting the scope of the injunction to above-ground construction directly addresses the National Trust's irreparable harm, which stems from the above-ground, visible construction of the ballroom. See Mem. Op. at 29-32; see also PI. 's Mem. in Supp. of Prelim. Inj. [Dkt. #51-1] at 24-25 ("[T]he National Trust has never requested ... that the Court enjoin construction of a bunker. The National Trust is simply requesting that the Court enjoin construction of the Ballroom."). My Order barring above-ground construction provides "complete relief' to the National Trust, while minimizing the "burden[]" to Defendants through the safety-and-security exception. See Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831,852 (2025) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979)).

Second, the injunction excludes only below-ground construction because, throughout this case, Defendants raised discrete national security concerns about construction of underground elements. Early on, Defendants argued that "security concerns . . . warrant[ ed] permitting the current below-grade construction to continue." Defs.' TRO Opp'n [Dkt. #15-1] at 27; see also TRO Hr'g Tr. [Dkt. #18] at 20:22-24 ("[T]he below-ground work that's occurring now has nothing to do with Plaintiff's asserted aesthetic injury, and that work must continue for national security reasons."). Specifically, Defendants indicated that national security-related facilities are being constructed below ground. See, e.g., Defs.' Suppl. Br. [Dkt. #30] at 41 (referencing a "security bunker" and stating that "an injunction halting construction would endanger national security"). The exception for underground national security facilities does not include the proposed ballroom because Defendants themselves distinguished between below-ground and above-ground construction, stating that "the below-surface work is driven by national security concerns independent of the above-grade construction." Defs.' Suppl. Br. at 39 4 Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL Document 72 Filed 04/16/26 Page 5 of 10 (emphasis added); see also Deel. of Professional Engineer [Dkt. #30-4] at i15 (referencing the "national security concerns with aspects of the below grade structure"). Defendants also repeatedly represented that the project's below-ground elements do not "lock in" the design of the above-ground ballroom. Defs.' Suppl. Br. at 4; see also Defs.' Mot. to Modify Schedule [Dkt. #22] i1 4; Defs.' Mot. to Stay [Dkt. #39] at 2; cf Deel. of John Stanwich ("Stanwich Deel.") [Dkt. #14-6] i1 21 (noting the below-ground elements could be "constructed as planned while the above grade design is finalized").

Kind of hard to argue the ballroom is an integral part of the security construction below ground when you say the two are completely separate projects. One if the arguments for the ballroom being a part of the secure structure below? It will have bulletproof glass.

Seriously. That’s part of the argument made to the court. Which is probably true, but whether the ballroom can be built, or not, is up to Congress.

Now let’s talk about authorizing that stupid arch….