A federal judge has declined to halt construction of the new White House ballroom that President Donald Trump is building on the site of the former East Wing, clearing a key legal hurdle for the high-profile project.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon on Thursday rejected a request from the National Trust for Historic Preservation to block the project while its legal challenge moves forward, finding that the group’s initial lawsuit was unlikely to succeed on its current legal theories.

The preservationists had argued that the demolition of the historic East Wing and subsequent construction of the 90,000-square-foot ballroom, funded with private donations, required congressional approval and independent federal review before work could proceed.

Leon’s ruling was grounded in procedural analysis, with the judge determining that the lawsuit improperly invoked the Administrative Procedure Act — which he said does not apply to alterations at the presidential residence — and that the plaintiffs failed to establish a viable statutory claim.

He suggested the group could amend its complaint to focus more directly on whether the administration exceeded its statutory authority, offering to consider such revisions expeditiously.

President Trump hailed the decision on social media, calling it “great news for America” and saying the ballroom would be a lasting symbol of the nation’s greatness, ahead of schedule and under budget.

The White House has maintained that past presidents have undertaken renovations and that the current effort does not require explicit congressional authorization, emphasising that private funding alleviates taxpayer burden.

Opponents of the project argue that the scale and funding mechanism — including substantial contributions from major corporations — could set a precedent for bypassing oversight and historic preservation protocols.

The demolition of the East Wing late last year, which critics say occurred without proper review by federal planning bodies, sparked particular controversy over transparency and the preservation of a national landmark.

Although the judge’s ruling allows construction to continue, legal challenges are expected to persist, with preservation advocates indicating they will pursue a revised complaint.

Additional reviews by the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts are also scheduled, further shaping the project’s regulatory context.

The outcome illustrates the broader legal and political debates over executive authority, historic preservation and the extent to which privately financed alterations to federal property should be subject to traditional legislative and public oversight.