WASHINGTON, D.C. — Approximately 150 Democratic lawmakers filed a legal brief in June 2025 arguing that President Trump’s proposed White House East Wing construction project cannot proceed without explicit congressional authorization and appropriated funds. The lawmakers assert that the Constitution grants Congress exclusive control over federal property and that no such approval or funding has been provided for the project.

"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 in the amicus brief. They added that Congress had only appropriated about $2.5 million for White House repairs, which they contend is insufficient for a large-scale construction effort. "Congress does not fund largescale construction projects with drop-in-the-bucket funding," the brief stated.

The coalition behind the filing is led by Representatives Robert Garcia and Jared Huffman of California and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said, "President Trump is building a billion-dollar ballroom. Everyone should be disgusted by his illegal and unconstitutional vanity project. We are fighting this in court."

The legal dispute follows a March ruling by a federal judge that halted construction until Congress approved the project. However, a panel of appellate judges has since temporarily allowed work to resume and is scheduled to hear arguments in the case next week. The Trump administration maintains that existing statutes permitting routine White House maintenance justify the privately funded $400 million demolition and reconstruction effort.

Other groups have also weighed in through separate amicus briefs. The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit against the project late last year. Ethics organizations and a consortium of architects and preservationists argue the project poses legal and historic preservation concerns, though those filings fall outside the scope of the Democratic lawmakers’ legal argument.