(The Epoch Times)—A federal district judge on Dec. 17 allowed the ongoing ballroom construction project at the White House to continue, turning away a preservation organization’s request to halt it, at least for the time being.
The litigation is still underway, and a court hearing is scheduled for January.
Construction on the project, which involves demolishing part of the executive mansion and building a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, began in September. The project is expected to cost about $300 million, all of which is expected to be funded by private donors, including President Donald Trump himself. The Trump administration released a list of the private donors in October.
Trump has said the ballroom project is necessary because the East Room—the largest room for gatherings in the White House—is too small and in poor shape. A government official said in a declaration filed with the court that the facilities at the White House are inadequate for large-scale events, which are instead held on the lawn, under tents.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit against Trump and federal agencies on Dec. 12 over the project. The National Trust is a private, charitable, educational nonprofit corporation that Congress chartered in 1949.
The legal complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, sought a judicial declaration that the project violates several federal statutes.
The National Trust also asked for an injunction to pause work on the project “until the necessary federal commissions have reviewed and approved the project’s plans; adequate environmental review has been conducted; and Congress has authorized the Ballroom’s construction,” according to the complaint.
In his new order, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon denied the group’s request for a temporary restraining order, but deferred his ruling on the request for a preliminary injunction until after the court conducts a hearing in January.
Leon said he was rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that he should stop the project because the group believes it would be harmed by not being allowed to participate “in the review process for the proposed ballroom.”
The judge noted in his order that the federal government has said it would begin “consultation processes with the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts by the end of the month.”
“The Court will hold the Government to its word,” he added.
Leon also rejected the plaintiff’s claim of “aesthetic harm,” noting that such a claim could not be evaluated because plans for the ballroom have not been finalized.
Aesthetic harm takes place when an unpleasing alteration to property diminishes its value or the extent to which people enjoy it. Courts have recognized aesthetic harm as a legitimate basis for standing in lawsuits. Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in a lawsuit.
Although below-grade demolition and excavation at the East Wing are underway, the government has said below-grade structural work will not commence “until January 2026 for the colonnade and February 2026 for the ballroom,” the judge said.
The judge said that at the court’s Dec. 16 hearing, the government indicated that “nothing about the ballroom has been finalized, including its size and scale.” Based on those representations, “there is no sufficiently imminent risk of irreparable aesthetic harm warranting a temporary restraining order halting construction,” he added.
The court “takes seriously” the government’s representations that the building plans are not yet final, that it will consult with the National Capital Planning Commission and Commission of Fine Arts by month’s end, and that “no above-grade construction will take place before April 2016,” the judge said.
At the hearing on Dec. 16, Leon previewed how he would rule, saying he was unlikely to block the construction project for now.
He said at that time that any violation of the plaintiff’s procedural right to comment on the plans before the project got underway was probably not enough to show irreparable harm, and did not justify the National Trust’s request for a temporary emergency block.
Stacy Robinson contributed to this report.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.