Attorney General Todd Blanche responded on Wednesday to remarks by Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner regarding the ongoing construction of a new White House ballroom. During a Tuesday press conference, Krasner, a Democrat, suggested that the ballroom would eventually be destroyed, stating he intended to keep a piece of the building as a "paperweight" in 10 to 15 years. Blanche, appearing on Fox News, criticized the focus of the district attorney on presidential projects and defended the legality of the construction.
The $600 million project is being funded through a combination of public taxpayer funds and private donations. While President Trump has described the facility as a necessary "gift" to the nation featuring security measures to protect leaders from drone strikes, critics within the Democratic party and organizations like the National Trust for Historic Preservation have challenged its legality. Blanche has argued that existing statutes concerning presidential authority permit the project, which is currently under review by the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary order allowing construction to proceed while the Supreme Court considers the case. President Trump stated last week that the project is currently "ahead of schedule" and "under budget." He also characterized those opposing the ballroom's construction as "disloyal" to the country. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is the primary party challenging the administration's legal standing to build the structure on the White House grounds.
For the public and federal workers, the construction brings immediate changes to the landscape of the White House and the surrounding historical district. Residents and visitors to the capital will notice the presence of a massive construction site, while the eventual completion would change the day-to-day operations of state events and diplomatic functions. The inclusion of state-of-the-art security features suggests a shift in how the executive branch prepares for modern aerial threats, potentially setting a precedent for how other federal buildings are fortified against drone technology.
The legal battle sets a significant precedent regarding the extent of presidential authority over historic preservation laws. A final ruling will determine whether a president can bypass traditional preservation reviews for projects deemed essential to national security or executive function. Currently, the construction continues under a temporary stay, but the future of the $600 million facility remains uncertain until the Supreme Court issues a final decision. Further hearings or a final ruling date have not yet been specified by the court.