标签： North America

A decades-long era of White House architectural tradition has hit a new point of legal and political friction, after a federal judge delivered a mixed ruling Thursday halting above-ground construction on former President Donald Trump’s ambitious White House ballroom expansion while permitting work on the project’s underground bunker component to move forward.

In his 14-page ruling, District Court Judge Richard Leon pushed back firmly against the Trump administration’s framing of the entire ballroom complex as a critical national security asset, arguing that the executive branch had attempted to bypass congressionally mandated approval processes to advance the controversial project. Leon wrote that the classification of the above-ground ballroom as a national security priority appeared to be a deliberate maneuver to skirt an earlier temporary restraining order the court issued in late March, when it first paused construction over procedural violations.

“National security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity,” Leon emphasized in his ruling.

The legal battle stems from a lawsuit filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a non-profit advocacy group that argued the Trump administration violated multiple federal laws when it demolished the 122-year-old East Wing of the White House last October to clear space for the multi-million dollar project. The organization outlined three core violations: the administration failed to submit project plans to the National Capital Planning Commission for required review, declined to complete a mandatory environmental assessment, and never secured formal authorization from Congress to alter federally owned White House property. The lawsuit also notes the project violates the U.S. Constitution’s Property Clause, which grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate and manage all federal property.

This mixed ruling marks the latest legal setback for the ballroom project, which has grown in scope and cost since it was first proposed. Initial plans called for a 500-person capacity ballroom, but the blueprint has since expanded to accommodate 1,350 guests. The White House has publicly stated the entire $400 million project is funded entirely by private donors, but critics have raised ongoing questions about transparency around donor sources and the need for the large-scale expansion.

The ruling came hours after the Department of Justice filed formal notice of its intent to appeal the earlier March temporary halt, and it quickly signaled it would challenge the new ruling as well. For his part, Trump took to his Truth Social platform hours after the ruling to blast Judge Leon’s decision, arguing the entire project is critical to U.S. national security and that the court does not have authority to block it.

Trump emphasized that the above-ground ballroom and underground bunker are inextricably linked, writing that “It’s all tied together as one big, expensive, and very complex unit, which is vital for National Security and Military Operations of the United States of America!” The president added that the underground component, which he has previously described as a storage “shed” for the lower complex, “doesn’t work, isn’t necessary, and would indeed be useless, without the above ground sections.” He also framed the ruling as an attack on presidential authority, arguing the court was “attempting to prevent future Presidents and World Leaders from having a safe and secure large scale Meeting Place.” He reiterated that construction remains on budget and ahead of schedule, despite the legal delays.

The ballroom project is just the centerpiece of a broader push by the Trump administration to reshape the capital’s historic landscape. On the same day as the ballroom ruling, a federal advisory panel stacked with Trump allies gave preliminary approval to another controversial proposal: a 250-foot-tall gold-accented victory arch, dubbed by critics the “Arc de Trump,” to be built on federal land in Washington D.C.

The Commission of Fine Arts voted to advance the plan, despite receiving overwhelming negative feedback from the public and historic preservation groups, who argue the giant monument would overwhelm the capital’s restrained neoclassical skyline. If given final approval, the arch would stand taller than both the U.S. Capitol Building and the Lincoln Memorial, and will feature a golden statue modeled after the Statue of Liberty holding a torch and crown.

Unlike the privately funded ballroom, the victory arch will draw direct taxpayer support. A public spending plan for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) released by the White House allocates $2 million in direct NEH special funds plus an additional $13 million in matching public funds for the project. Trump has previously stated that unspent funds from the ballroom project would also be diverted to cover arch construction costs.

Legal analysts note that the appeal of the ballroom ruling could take months to resolve, creating significant delays for a project the president has pushed to complete before the next general election. Preservation groups have pledged to continue challenging both the ballroom and victory arch projects in court, arguing they violate federal law and erode protections for Washington’s historic federal landscape.

President Donald Trump has announced his nomination of Dr. Erica Schwartz, a retired Coast Guard rear admiral with deep ties to his first presidential administration, to serve as the permanent director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), filling a leadership vacancy that has stretched on for months.

Schwartz, who brings a multi-disciplinary background to the role, holds a medical degree from Brown University, a law degree from the University of Maryland and a master’s in public health, and spent 24 years in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. During Trump’s first term in office, she served as deputy surgeon general, but departed government service after the 2020 election when the incoming Biden administration passed her over for the acting surgeon general post.

In a post shared on his Truth Social platform, Trump praised the nominee, writing, “It is my honour to nominate the incredibly talented Dr Erica Schwartz, MD, JD, MPH, as my Director of the CDC. She is a star!”

The CDC has operated without a Senate-confirmed director since the September ousting of previous leader Susan Monarez, who was removed just under one month into her tenure following high-profile clashes with U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over his approach to vaccine policy. Monarez later detailed her ousting in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, saying she was fired for refusing to automatically approve vaccine recommendations from a new advisory panel Kennedy stacked with prominent vaccine skeptics. Since Monarez’s departure, National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya has filled the role on an interim basis.

Schwartz’s nomination marks the second attempt by the Trump administration to fill the top CDC post. Trump’s first pick, former Florida Congressman Dave Weldon, a longstanding vaccine critic, saw his nomination withdrawn earlier after it became clear he lacked the Senate support needed for confirmation.

The CDC has undergone sweeping upheaval since Kennedy took the helm of the Department of Health and Human Services, including large-scale staff firings and a major restructuring that Kennedy has framed as a necessary effort to cut back on what he calls “bureaucratic sprawl”. Kennedy’s controversial overhauls to national vaccine policy have sparked widespread alarm among the scientific community, including many current and former CDC staffers. A number of senior officials resigned in protest following Monarez’s ousting, and in March a federal judge issued an order blocking the majority of Kennedy’s vaccine policy changes from taking effect.

At the largest annual gathering of conservative activists and leaders in the United States, the BBC set out to answer a pressing question facing the modern American right: Does former President Donald Trump truly meet the defining political and policy challenges of the moment for U.S. conservatives?

The event, which draws thousands of movement leaders, grassroots organizers, and elected officials from across the country, served as the ideal backdrop to probe how Trump’s core stances align with the priorities of the conservative base. To get on-the-ground insight, BBC correspondents spoke directly to dozens of Trump’s supporters in attendance, asking for their views on three of the most contentious issues shaping U.S. conservative politics today: tensions with Iran, the state of the domestic economy, and immigration policy.

These three topics have long been fault lines in American conservative politics, and they remain central to debates over the direction of the Republican Party heading into upcoming electoral cycles. For many conservatives, evaluating how Trump addresses these issues is key to determining whether he is the right standard-bearer for the movement moving forward. The on-the-record conversations with attendees at this major conservative convening offered unfiltered insight into how the president’s backers believe he measures up to the challenges that matter most to the right.

A three-hour congressional budget hearing on Thursday devolved into sharp partisan and policy clashes Thursday, as U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attempted to pivot conversation away from his controversial vaccine stances to a focus on chronic disease prevention, while lawmakers from both parties grilled him on his response to the worst measles outbreak in decades, his proposed agency budget cuts, and questionable public health claims.

The hearing marked Kennedy’s first appearance before the U.S. Congress in months, and centered on the Trump administration’s proposal to slash HHS’ fiscal year budget by roughly $16 billion, a 12.5% reduction from the previous year’s funding level.

Kennedy, a longstanding public skeptic of conventional vaccine safety guidelines, has spent his tenure leading the agency pursuing sweeping overhaul to long-standing U.S. immunization policy. His changes included cutting the number of recommended childhood vaccine doses and reorganizing the agency’s top vaccine advisory panel to seat several prominent vaccine critics. However, a federal judge tossed out the majority of these changes back in March, ruling the new advisory panel appointees had not been properly seated in accordance with federal protocol. While HHS initially announced it would appeal the ruling, the agency has yet to file an appeal, and Kennedy has increasingly avoided public discussion of vaccine policy in subsequent months.

During the hearing, Democratic members of the House Ways & Means Committee repeatedly pressed Kennedy on his mixed messaging around the MMR vaccine amid an ongoing measles outbreak that has recorded nearly 4,000 confirmed cases across the U.S. between 2025 and 2026, including two childhood deaths in Texas last year. Rep. Mike Thompson of California confronted Kennedy with a chart documenting the rising case count, arguing “Your dangerous conspiracy theories are undermining safe and effective vaccines.”

Rep. Linda Sanchez of California asked Kennedy directly whether one of the two Texas child deaths could have been prevented through timely measles vaccination, to which Kennedy responded, “It’s possible, certainly.”

Instead of engaging on questions of vaccine policy, Kennedy attempted to reframe the hearing around his stated priority of ending federal public health policies that he claims have contributed to the nation’s growing chronic disease crisis. “President Trump and I are challenging the status quo and the institutions that defend it as we work to make America healthy again in just 15 months,” he told the committee, adding that the $16 billion budget cut was an unavoidable response to the nation’s $39 trillion national deficit. “Nobody wants to make the cuts,” he said, pushing back on Democratic criticism that cuts to maternal and child nutrition aid and other public health programs would harm population health.

Tensions flared at multiple points throughout the hearing, with Kennedy pushing back against what he framed as Democratic efforts to shut down debate. “They’ve all shut me up and they’ve talked about science, but science is about debate,” he said.

Partisan divides on Kennedy’s leadership were on clear display: multiple Republican lawmakers praised Kennedy’s agenda, with House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington calling Kennedy “a breath of fresh air” for challenging longstanding institutional norms. However, he drew criticism from at least one Republican lawmaker over his widely debunked claims linking prenatal Tylenol use to autism. Rep. Blake Moore of Utah, who has a neurodivergent son, told Kennedy that the claim had needlessly harmed parents. “My wife was hurt, and she felt for a split-second until we came to our senses and we talked about this, that there was any way she was responsible,” Moore said. “We don’t even know if she took Tylenol during her pregnancy, but that was a hurtful moment for her.” Moore added he was “underwhelmed” by the administration’s autism research efforts to date, a policy area Kennedy has framed as a central mission of his tenure.

A second attempt by congressional Democrats to limit President Donald Trump’s authority to launch expanded military action against Iran has collapsed in the U.S. House of Representatives, falling by just a single vote one day after an identical measure was blocked in the Senate.

The War Powers Resolution, which sought to reassert congressional oversight over U.S. military engagement connected to the ongoing Iran-related conflict, failed in a razor-thin 213-214 vote Thursday. Long viewed as largely symbolic by legislative observers, the measure faced steep procedural barriers even if it had cleared the House: passage in both chambers would still have been almost certain to be defeated by a presidential veto from Trump.

Party lines largely held on the vote, echoing the pattern seen one day earlier in the Senate. Only one Republican, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, broke ranks to join Democrats in supporting the measure. On the opposite side, Representative Jared Golden of Maine was the sole Democrat to vote against the resolution. Ohio Representative Warren Davidson, who backed a similar Democratic-led effort back in March, chose to vote “present”, a procedural move that counts as an official abstention.

Following the unsuccessful vote, New York Representative Gregory Meeks, the sponsor of the resolution, told reporters he planned to begin outreach to Golden and other on-the-fence lawmakers to build more support for future attempts. Meeks confirmed he would introduce a new War Powers Resolution in the coming weeks, as Democrats continue their long-running push to reclaim Congress’s constitutionally granted authority over decisions to enter armed conflict.

This latest failure comes just one month after a near-identical measure fell by a narrow margin in the House. In that first vote, two Republicans supported the resolution while four Democrats opposed it. Even if Thursday’s vote had flipped to a majority in favor, the measure was already facing long odds in the Senate, where a matching resolution was voted down Wednesday in a 47-52 vote that broke almost entirely along party lines.

Republican opposition to the resolution is not necessarily set in stone, however. Multiple GOP lawmakers have signaled that they are open to reconsidering their positions if the ongoing U.S.-Israel military campaign, which launched on February 28, expands geographically or drags on past the end of this month. Trump has offered inconsistent timelines for how long the engagement will last, most recently claiming the conflict was “close to over”.

The push for the resolution comes directly out of requirements laid out in the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the landmark federal law passed to limit executive authority during the Vietnam War, when then-President Richard Nixon continued U.S. military involvement without full congressional approval. The 1973 law mandates that Congress must grant explicit approval for any military action that extends longer than 60 days. With the current campaign having launched on February 28, that 60-day window is rapidly approaching.