The question of whether President Donald Trump may, without seeking permission from Congress, demolish much of the White House and replace it with his own projects is now before the Supreme Court. 

Last fall, construction crews acting under Trump’s orders abruptly tore down the East Wing of the White House, the first step in Trump’s plan to replace the historic building with an enormous ballroom. A conservationist organization, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, soon sued to stop the construction on the ballroom in a case that is still ongoing. Lower courts have thus far agreed with this plaintiff that the ballroom is illegal. 

Last week, Trump formally asked the justices to greenlight his ballroom while the challenge works its way through lower courts. The case is known as National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation. 

Trump’s claim that he may tear down large sections of the White House and replace them with the ballroom is not supported by law. A federal statute provides that “a building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.” Although Trump’s lawyers claimed that two separate statutes allow him to get around this provision, the federal appeals court that heard National Park Service thoroughly dismantled that claim in a 101-page opinion. 

That said, the Court could potentially hand Trump a victory by prohibiting anyone from bringing a lawsuit against his ballroom to begin with. Should this argument succeed, it could have major ramifications for a wide range of laws that seek to conserve environmental resources or preserve sacred or historical sites. 

Under current law, a plaintiff who alleges that a defendant’s actions will illegally damage such a site may file a federal lawsuit so long as they can demonstrate that they plan to visit the site in the near future and will find the site less attractive if it is altered. This is exactly what happened in National Park Service: A member of a conservationist group — the National Trust for Historic Preservation — who often went by the White House said the new construction would diminish the beauty of the site.

More broadly, the Court has long held that plaintiffs who wish to observe something beautiful may often sue to enforce environmental statutes that seek to preserve that beauty. As the Court said in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), a seminal case that is often cited because it laid out limits on who is allowed to bring federal lawsuits, “the desire to use or observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic purposes, is undeniably a cognizable interest” that can be asserted in federal court.

Trump’s brief, however, rejects this longstanding rule. Without it, numerous environmental, conservationist, and historical preservation laws could effectively cease to function, because no one would be able to file a lawsuit enforcing them.

The stakes in National Park Service, in other words, are far greater than whether Trump can replace the East Wing with an eyesore. And they are even greater than the question of whether Trump can remake one of America’s most cherished landmarks without congressional authorization. If Trump prevails in National Park Service, he could fundamentally wound America’s environmental protection regime in the process.

Trump’s ballroom is illegal

Recall that federal law bars new construction on federal lands within the District of Columbia “without express authority of Congress.” So, unless there is some existing statute that allows Trump’s ballroom to move forward, the ballroom is illegal.

But Trump cited no such law in his brief. Instead, he relied on two statutes that might be read to authorize parts of what Trump needs permission to do.

The first is a provision that permits Congress to appropriate money that the president may use to pay for “the care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting (including electric power and fixtures) of the Executive Residence at the White House.” But, as the appeals court that ruled against Trump explained, there are numerous reasons why this statute cannot be read to permit the ballroom. 

The most straightforward reason is that Congress only gave the president a $2.475 million budget to spend under this statute. But Trump’s lawyers claimed this project will be funded by “approximately $400 million in private donations.” So, even if Trump’s ballroom counts as an “alteration” or “improvement” of the existing “Executive Residence at the White House” — and all three of these points are contested — Trump cannot use his White House maintenance budget to fund a $400 million project.

To get around this problem, Trump’s lawyers argued that the National Park Service is allowed to accept private donations, so it can use donated money to build the ballroom.

But, while it is true that the Park Service may accept donated funds, that doesn’t mean that it can use these funds to tear down an historic federal building and replace it with something completely different. The relevant federal law permits the Park Service to “promote and regulate the use of the National Park System by means and measures that conform to the fundamental purpose of the System units, which purpose is to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life in the System units and to provide for the enjoyment of the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

This law could not be clearer that it calls on the Park Service to “conserve” historic objects such as the East Wing and to leave them “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” So, if anything, this law prohibits Trump from using Park Service funds to build his ballroom. Tearing down an historical structure and replacing it with a different, much larger, and architecturally distinct structure is the opposite of conservation.

Still, there’s one big reason why Trump’s argument might win over the justices anyway. According to Trump’s brief in the case, the ballroom will sit on top of an enormous bunker that extends five stories underground and that includes “bomb shelters,” “secret military structures and equipment,” and “state of the art hospital and medical facilities.” The lower courts have already permitted construction on this bunker to continue; its legality isn’t before the justices. 

Trump’s lawyers’ attempt to characterize the ballroom as part of what their brief calls an “integrated military complex” is savvy, as the courts often defer to the other branches on questions of national security. And Trump’s Justice Department also makes an argument that plausibly could persuade this Supreme Court to rule in Trump’s favor despite the fact that the ballroom has no legal support. 

The most significant legal issue in National Park Service is whether anyone is allowed to sue in order to challenge the ballroom

As a general rule, no one is allowed to file a federal lawsuit unless they have been injured in some way by the defendant that they are suing; this requirement is known as “standing.” But the Court has long held that plaintiffs may challenge illegal practices that might alter the aesthetic beauty of a site that is protected by law. As the Court said in Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (2000), “environmental plaintiffs adequately allege injury in fact when they aver that they use the affected area and are persons ‘for whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the area will be lessened’ by the challenged activity.’”

Friends of the Earth does not permit literally anyone to challenge any alteration to protected lands or buildings. Such a plaintiff only has standing if they can show that they will visit the site at issue in their lawsuit and that the planned alterations to that site will actually reduce their aesthetic enjoyment of it — but that’s enough.

The plaintiff in National Park Service is a conservationist organization whose members include a professor emerita of architectural history who said that she travels “to the White House neighborhood frequently”; that she “regularly view[s] the White House”; and that she believes that Trump’s proposed ballroom would render the White House less attractive because it would “diminish the primacy of the White House,” because “no longer would the eye be drawn to the jewel of the building at the center,” aka the residential section of the White House complex.

Thus, because organizations are typically allowed to sue on behalf of their members, this conservationist group has standing. They have at least one member who clears the low bar the Court set in Friends of the Earth.

Trump’s brief, however, dismissed this “seeing-is-standing theory,” claiming that the professor’s mere discomfort, produced by “‘observation of conduct” that she disagreed with is “not an injury sufficient to confer standing.” Trump, in other words, is effectively asking the Court to overrule Friends of the Earth, along with many other cases establishing that plaintiffs may often sue over aesthetic injuries.

If that gambit succeeds, the consequences for conservationist laws of all kinds would likely be catastrophic. As the appeals court explained, Trump’s “cramped standing theory would deem no one injured by a decision to raze the Statue of Liberty, to obscure the names on the Vietnam War Memorial, or to install a political billboard atop Mount Rushmore.” It could also prevent private lawsuits against a company that dumps foul-smelling chemicals in a national park.

The whole point of many environmental and historical preservation laws is to ensure that something that Congress believes is beautiful will remain beautiful. If no plaintiff can assert an aesthetic injury, that means that laws intended to preserve pristine, sacred, or historical sites will go unenforced — and may become completely unenforceable.

So, the stakes in National Park Service are quite high. While Trump’s statutory arguments are meritless, this case is potentially an existential threat to numerous environmental laws. The question is whether the justices will be persuaded by some combination of Trump’s attacks on Friends of the Earth and his allusions to national security to upend many decades of established law.

The act itself — appointing a crony and longtime friend to an important government job — was not unusual. It’s not even unprecedented for them to appoint family members. (See: Kennedy, President John F. and Attorney General Robert F.) But Donald Trump’s appointment of Todd Blanche, his former criminal defense attorney, as attorney general may be a first, and not because Blanche has been a close associate. What’s striking about it is the fact that the president needed a criminal defense attorney in the first place.

On Sunday Blanche made his first appearance since his confirmation on “Meet the Press”, and from the first seconds of the interview he made it clear that his new, permanent position would not change his understanding of his role as the president’s apparatchik. When host Kristen Welker pressed him on whether he would act independently, Blanche did not mince words. “No, I’m not going to pledge that,” he said. “No attorney general should ever pledge that.”

Blanche clearly believes that his job is to run the Justice Department by doing the president’s bidding. But he did take time to assure the country that Trump had never, and would never, ask him to do anything unethical or illegal, so we needn’t worry our pretty little heads about that. “There is this extraordinarily false narrative that the president wakes up in the morning and calls me and says, ‘Todd, go prosecute X or Y,’” Blanche said. “He does not do that. He has never done that. He will never do that.”

Well, we know that isn’t true, don’t we? Aside from the mountain of evidence of Trump’s unethical, vengeful public rhetoric, we also have the September 2025 Truth Social draft post he mistakenly published in which he demanded that then-Attorney General Pam Bondi prosecute his political enemies, saying “They’re all guilty as hell” and complaining “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” Ultimately, Bondi was fired in part for failing to get the indictments he ordered for former FBI director James Comey, California Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Blanche won’t make that same mistake.

When Welker asked him how he squares his and the president’s commitment to prosecute anyone who “inappropriately touches” a law enforcement officer after Trump’s pardons of the violent Jan. 6 criminals, Blanche essentially replied that pardons are the president’s business and they have nothing to do with him. (In fact, the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney has traditionally had oversight of the process.) Unfortunately, Welker didn’t point this out in a follow-up, nor did she ask him about his role as deputy attorney general in overseeing the firings of the department’s prosecutors and staff members who worked on the Jan. 6 cases. 

---

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

---

The irony is that this is exactly the kind of interference in the Justice Department that precipitated the rules and norms that call for the attorney general to operate at arm’s length from the White House. Admittedly, it’s a complicated role; the attorney general is a prominent member of the Cabinet, but is also expected to act independently. Some have been more successful at that than others, and at times attorneys general on both sides of the aisle have been thorns in the side of the presidents they serve. 

In the 1990s, Janet Reno’s liberal use of the independent counsel statute, which resulted in several investigations against the Clinton administration, caused the president and his staff heartburn. But although he may have groused privately, Bill Clinton did not retaliate against her; Reno remained at the Justice Department throughout his two terms. On the other hand, John Ashcroft’s refusal to allow the George W. Bush administration to override the Justice Department’s finding that a covert domestic surveillance program was illegal — which included a “showdown” at the severely ill Ashcroft’s hospital bedside in March 2004 — helped ensure he was replaced in Bush’s second term.

By and large, administrations respected the formal guardrails that were enacted in the wake of Watergate, which saw Richard Nixon manipulate the Justice Department for his own political protection.

After the so-called Saturday Night Massacre on Oct. 20, 1973, which saw Nixon fire the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate break-in, and subsequent revelations of Nixon’s abuses of power — including the fact that his Attorney General John Mitchell was personally involved in the planning of the Watergate break-in — Congress enacted a series of reforms to insulate the Justice Department from political pressure and interference. The Justice Department itself created guidelines to make the department a “neutral zone” to ensure that while the president could set national law enforcement goals, the White House would not be involved in specific investigations and prosecutions.

For the most part, administrations stuck to those regulations for decades, although the Republicans started pushing the envelope even before Trump came along. Recall that in 2007 Bush’s second attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, was forced to resign when it became known that he had fired several U.S. attorneys when they failed to follow orders to go after Democratic politicians on dubious charges before elections.

While serious, even that is small potatoes to how Trump has blown the guidelines to smithereens. Like Nixon, Trump sees the Justice Department as a personal law firm that possesses all the power of the U.S. government to use for his own purposes. And since vengeance against his enemies is his top priority, the department is his chosen weapon.

At every step of the way — from deputy to acting attorney general, and now to holding the post in his own right following his narrow Senate confirmation — Todd Blanche has acted in Trump’s interest over that of the people of the United States. In further insult to the public, Blanche told NBC in April that they should be “happy” Trump is meddling in matters of the Justice Department. In his various roles, Blanche has helped cover up the Epstein files, and he personally signed a memorandum of understanding assuring the president that he and his family would never face an IRS audit again. Since he took office as deputy attorney general, some 16,000 to 20,000 personnel have left the Justice Department, apparently unwilling to go along with an edict bearing his imprimatur that Donald Trump is their “chief client.” Here, they’d been thinking their chief client was the American people.

During his interview with Welker, Blanche attempted to spin his refusal to ensure the department’s independence from Trump. “If I were to pledge I were to be independent of the White House, what that means is that if President Trump says, ‘I want the Department of Justice to go after every violent criminal in this country, which is what he has said — what you’re saying to me is I should say, ‘No sir, I’m not gonna do it,’” Blanche said. “So I will act with integrity, our prosecutors will act with integrity, we will prosecute without fear or any sort of favor, and that’s exactly what we have been doing.”

With over two years left in Trump’s presidency, I can’t even begin to contemplate what Blanche will do on his behalf. Whatever happens will be cloaked in lies — and followed by gaslighting.

The post Todd Blanche’s dangerous lie sets the stage for more DOJ abuses appeared first on Salon.com.

In the year the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of its break with the British crown, there is something almost painfully ironic about a broadcaster from the kingdom that once ruled us now being more willing to stand up to Donald Trump than much of the American establishment. But the irony isn’t really the story. The story is that the president filed a $10 billion lawsuit to punish the BBC, and in doing so, he may have handed the corporation a legal instrument to drag his children Ivanka and Donald Jr., and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, into a Miami courtroom to answer for what happened on Jan. 6.

The lawsuit was supposed to be another exercise in the familiar Trumpian playbook: File a claim, demand an astronomical sum, bury the target in legal expenses, force a humiliating settlement that gets marketed as a political win. That strategy has worked before. In 2024, ABC News agreed to pay $15 million after network anchor George Stephanopoulos inaccurately said Trump had been found liable for rape. Paramount later paid more than $24 million over CBS News’ handling of an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris that took place during the 2024 presidential race. With that track record, Trump had every reason to expect the BBC to fold in the same way.

He miscalculated badly. As a public service corporation, the BBC operates under a royal charter that explicitly bars it from entering into out-of-court financial settlements to make litigation disappear. It cannot cut a check to sweep away Trump’s claims. The corporation is legally bound to fight until a verdict is reached — or until Trump himself gives up. And its defense team, anchored by the First Amendment firm Ballard Spahr, has used that obligation to go straight at the people closest to Trump on Jan. 6.

The underlying claim concerns a 2024 documentary about Trump’s candidacy that aired on “Panorama.” Titled “Trump, A Second Chance?”, the program edited together separate portions of Trump’s Jan. 6 speech so that it sounded as though he said, in immediate sequence, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you,” followed by “we fight, we fight like hell.” Those lines were actually spoken nearly an hour apart, and the BBC has apologized for how the edit was constructed. But the corporation has not apologized for the underlying accusation — because the documentary’s producers and the BBC’s lawyers believe it is true. The BBC has also noted the documentary never aired in the U.S., including in Florida, which creates its own problem for Trump’s attempt to establish the legal connection between the broadcast and the injury he claims to have suffered.

But the discovery fight is where this stopped being a media dispute and became a family liability. Because the entire defamation claim hinges on Trump’s intent — on what he meant by the phrase “fight like hell” — the BBC’s lawyers moved to subpoena the people who helped draft that speech and who were closest to him as the Capitol riot unfolded. On Aug. 14, the BBC asked a federal court in Miami for permission to compel testimony and records from Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Kushner concerning the drafting and meaning of the speech.

According to the BBC’s own filings, Donald Jr. and Ivanka were in the room while the speech was being revised and were present when it was delivered. Kushner drafted a statement condemning the Capitol violence that the White House never issued. He also reportedly told then-chief of staff Mark Meadows the situation was “getting really ugly” as it unfolded, while Trump Jr. texted Meadows begging him to get his father to “condemn this” immediately. 

These are not neutral bystanders being swept into a media spat. They are three people who watched the fire get lit and, by their own contemporaneous words, knew exactly what was burning. And if the case proceeds, they may have to say so under oath.

Trump’s own conduct made this exposure worse. The BBC also sought his financial records to test the legitimacy of the massive damages he claimed to have suffered — a maneuver that prompted him to quietly abandon his monetary claims rather than open his ledgers to public scrutiny. His lawyers had previously dismissed the request as a “fishing expedition.” But this is how discovery works: If you claim a broadcast inflicted extraordinary economic harm, the defendant gets to test that claim. Trump built the case that now threatens to expose his own children and son-in-law, and he built it because he assumed no one would ever call his bluff.

But the most revealing part of the BBC’s filing isn’t the subpoenas themselves — it’s the account of what happened when the network tried to serve them. Process servers attempting to deliver subpoenas to Ivanka and Kushner at their fortified Miami residence in May were physically blocked by local law enforcement, who directed them to coordinate through the Secret Service. When the BBC’s legal team did exactly that, Secret Service counsel Troy Epstein flatly declared the agency was neither authorized to accept service on the family’s behalf nor willing to help facilitate it. The BBC says it also could not serve Trump Jr. at Trump Tower. It has now asked the court for permission to use alternative methods — email or certified mail — because the ordinary machinery of American process service has been quietly closed off by a federal agency to a foreign broadcaster trying to hold the president’s family accountable.

---

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

---

That is the part of this story that should trouble people well beyond press freedom circles. Taxpayer-funded federal security agencies are being used as a private shield for a political dynasty, deployed to physically block the basic mechanics of a civil lawsuit that Trump himself initiated. It echoes the darker pattern already established around this family and this date — the Secret Service’s unexplained failure to preserve text messages and call logs from around Jan. 6, and allegations that agents played a role in intimidating witnesses like former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson before her explosive congressional testimony. A protective detail meant to keep the first family safe is being repurposed to keep it unaccountable.

Trump has responded predictably, complaining that the BBC is “abusing the deposition process.” His projection is transparent. Nobody dragged his family into this. He is the plaintiff. He asked for $10 billion. He put his own reputation, his financial losses and the meaning of his own speech at the center of a case he chose to bring, and in doing so he opened the door to exactly the kind of scrutiny now aimed at Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Kushner. A defendant testing the plaintiff’s claims isn’t harassment. It’s the legal process working according to centuries of jurisprudence — just as the president intended.

None of this guarantees the subpoenas will be enforced, or that Ivanka, Donald Jr. or Kushner will ever sit for testimony. The court could still limit the subpoena’s scope, and the family’s lawyers will fight the serving of them on every available ground. But the posture itself matters. 

While the BBC absorbs real financial strain from international litigation against a sitting American president, it has refused to play the domestic game of corporate capitulation that has defined how ABC, CBS and so many other news outlets have handled Trump’s legal threats. It punched back in the fight Trump started and pushed it toward the people who were actually in the room on Jan. 6 — the same people the taxpayer-funded Secret Service is now, apparently, working to keep out of reach.

The post Trump sued the BBC — now Jared and Ivanka may pay for it appeared first on Salon.com.

This story appeared in Today, Explained, a daily newsletter that helps you understand the most compelling news and stories of the day. Subscribe here.

Hi readers, it’s me again! Caitlin will be back on Wednesday. Now, for today’s news: President Donald Trump, South Korea, and the state of the US’s military alliances.

Remember Trump’s first-term “love letters” with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un? Trump was so fond of them that he took them with him when he left the presidency in 2021 (the National Archives did not approve). Now, it seems like the two leaders are taking up where they left off.

Over the weekend, Trump announced in a social media post that he would “substantially reduce” scheduled joint military exercises between the US and South Korea, which get underway today. The reason? His “very good relationship with Kim Jong Un, of North Korea.” 

But there may have been another reason. Trump also wrote that “While somewhat unrelated (?), I recently asked the President of South Korea if they would like to join us in the Denuclearization of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and they said, “No thanks!””

The US-South Korea exercises “are not only costly, with much of these costs paid for by the United States of America (as usual!),” Trump wrote, “but send a signal that is totally inappropriate and hostile, to a Country that, as long as Donald J. Trump has been President, has been unthreatening and respectful.”

That last part — “unthreatening and respectful” — is not exactly true; in 2017, Kim called Trump “a mentally deranged US dotard” whom North Korea would “tame…with fire.” But in the present day, Trump’s announcement is a boon to the North Korean leader, who has denounced the military exercises. 

It’s also just the latest incident in the historically close US-South Korea relationship (the two countries have held military exercises annually for more than 70 years). Earlier this year, Trump lashed out with new tariffs, accusing South Korea of “not living up to its Deal,” referring to a 2025 agreement on trade and security between the two countries that South Korea’s legislature had not yet approved.

Go a little deeper

The US has more permanent troops in South Korea than it does almost anywhere else in the world, behind only its deployments in Japan and Germany. Under Trump, though, those once-durable commitments have started to look a lot shakier.

Europe — and Germany in particular — has borne the brunt of Trump’s second-term harassment: In May, Trump announced his intent to remove 5,000 US troops from Germany and threatened to go “a lot further”; the Pentagon has said that withdrawal will take place within 12 months. The US currently has more than 38,000 troops stationed in Germany.

Trump has made similar threats about US troops stationed in Italy and Spain, and even suggested removing all US troops from Europe.

Most of these threats have been triggered by Trump’s unhappiness with European defense spending, which he’s eternally trying to boost. 

But in his second term, the threats have grown much more tightly tied to Trump’s personal ambitions and grievances. Trump’s Germany announcement followed a clash with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the US war with Iran, which Trump has tried — unsuccessfully — to drag US allies into. Spain, in particular, has also drawn Trump’s ire for vocally opposing the war. 

Last month, he also tied the US troop presence in Europe to his insistence that the US be allowed to take over Greenland, which belongs to Denmark, a US ally and founding NATO member.

One link for later

➨ A low-tech way to save coral reefs. My colleague Benji Jones visited the island nation of Palau, in the western Pacific Ocean, to learn about a new approach to reef restoration. Scientists there are testing species of coral specifically for heat resistance to find better options for replanting reefs — all using some plastic picnic coolers and a bit of hot water. 

Before you go…

• Did you know…that the Vera C. Rubin Observatory in the Chilean Andes has the largest digital camera ever made? It captured its “first light” last year in staggering high-definition. 
• Today’s trivia: What was the title of Iran’s ruler until 1979? (You can find this and other brain puzzles in Vox’s daily crossword. Look for the answer in tomorrow’s edition.)
• Friday’s trivia: On Friday, we asked you which US president responded to inflation by ordering wage and price freezes. That was President Richard Nixon.