At oral arguments before a federal appeals court in Washington on June 5, 2026, a Justice Department lawyer argued that courts cannot stop President Trump from demolishing national landmarks, and agreed that even the Statue of Liberty could be torn down with no legal recourse. The hearing was part of the National Trust for Historic Preservation's lawsuit challenging Trump's $400 million White House ballroom, built after he demolished the East Wing in October without the public review the Trust says the law requires.
The DOJ's core argument is that the Trust lacks standing to sue and that only Congress, not the courts, can halt the project, especially now that the East Wing is gone and construction is far along. Judge Patricia Millett pressed the point with a hypothetical: “If the government decides very quickly to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, the people whose ancestors—that was the first thing they saw coming to this country, but the government moved too fast—nothing can be done?” (as transcribed by Politico's Kyle Cheney and quoted by The New Republic) The DOJ lawyer answered, “I think that's right, yes.”
Both the Statue of Liberty and the White House are managed by the National Park Service, and demolishing such a landmark would normally require review under the National Historic Preservation Act. The exchange drew wide attention as an unusually blunt assertion that the administration can act faster than courts can intervene (see DOJ Tries to Use the WHCD Shooting as Grounds to Kill the National Trust's Lawsuit Against Trump's $400 Million White House Ballroom; the Trust Refuses).
Update (September 25, 2026): on August 7 the appeals court upheld the injunction 2-1, Reuters reported, and paused its order for 14 days to allow an appeal. The Supreme Court then stayed the injunction 5-4 on August 31, finding the Trust likely lacks standing, the argument the Justice Department made here (see Over the Chief Justice's Dissent, the Supreme Court Lets Trump Keep Building His Ballroom Without Deciding Whether It Is Legal). Note (September 25, 2026): Judge Millett's question is now quoted as The New Republic printed Politico's transcription, with dashes where an earlier version had an ellipsis and a comma. The wording is unchanged.