Trump's Trials - This woman is at the center of the legal claim against Trump's ballroom project

Episode Date: April 3, 2026

NPR's Steve Inskeep meets the National Trust's Alison Hoagland near the White House to talk about her role in challenging the construction of President Trump's ballroom complex. Support NPR and hear every episode of Trump's Terms sponsor-free with NPR+. Sign up at plus.npr.org.To manage podcast ad preferences, review the links below:See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

It's Trump's terms from NPR. I'm Scott Detrow. Every episode, we bring you a story from NPR's recent coverage of the 47th president, with a focus on ways he's using power like no president before him. Here is the latest from NPR. From NPR News, I'm A Martinez. And I'm Steve Inskeep. The National Capital Planning Commission has approved plans for President Trump's White House ballroom.

They did that, even though a judge has ruled construction must stop, while a lawsuit proceeds. The people who obtained that injunction had to show the judge two things. They had to show a strong case that the ballroom project is illegal and that someone on their side had standing to go to court. The judge found one person did have standing, and we arranged to meet her near the White House. Hi. Alice Hougland, nice to meet you. Nice to meet you as well. Thanks for agreeing to meet here. What a lovely spot. Except for her, yeah. Well, there is a lot going on. Allison Houghlin was at the edge of Lafayette Park in front of the White House. We stood near tourists and a street preacher at a fence that keeps people away from the presidential mansion.

But in any case, we can see the White House from here. From a remove, yes. And we can see the construction crane that looms over the side of the future ballroom. Exactly. An enormous construction crane off to the left of the White House. Now, I want to talk about this spot and your involvement with it, but I wonder if there's a slightly quieter place we can go? Do you know if we can get around the side?

all? We tried a nearby hotel and finally stood in the courtyard of Decatur House, a historic home by the park. So we are as near as we can get to Lafayette Park, which faces the White House. What is your connection over the years to this neighborhood? As most Washingtonians do we come through here all the time. This is the center of the city. We bring friends here. We drive by, we walk by, and the White House is so visually accessible to all of us. It's something we can see from the street, or at least it used to be today. It's a little difficult. You can see from a couple streets away. From a couple streets away.

That view is crucial to the lawsuit. After President Trump ordered the demolition of the White House East Wing and released images of a ballroom, the National Trust for Historic Preservation sued. Alison Hoagland is a member of the board of that nonprofit. I think my whole career is understanding the importance of architecture and how it explains human behavior, particularly in the past. Her experience is a writer on historical. historic architecture informs her view of the ballroom, which is designed to be far larger than the

house itself. It puts the emphasis on the wrong place. The emphasis should be on the White House, the center of our government, the head of state's house and office. And instead, it's a distraction. It takes all your attention to something big and irrelevant and asymmetrical. And the administration is welcome to build a ballroom on the site. They could do it much better. They could make it lower. They could make it almost hidden. could make it deferential to the White House and still have everything he needs. That's Hoagland's opinion. But to be part of a lawsuit, you need more than an opinion.

You need to have legal standing, which means you have to show the action you were suing against affects you. Hoagland wrote a letter saying the ballroom disturbs her walks, her view of the city. The judge says that you, Professor Hoagland, adequately described the specific ways in which, in the absence of the injunction, your interests in the aesthetic use and enjoyment of the White House grounds will be irreparably injured. It is your irreparable harm that made the injunction possible. I wish people could see the apparent joy on your face. Oh, actually, I'm appalled because it's harm to everybody. It's not just me.

This is the American people's house, and we should be very concerned about what is happening to it. But the law requires someone to be injured in order to sue in order to get. an injunction and that someone turns out to be you. I'm just that symbol here. I'm not the only one. What would you say to somebody who thinks, okay, so her walk changes a little bit, the view from her walk changes a little bit. Who cares? First of all, I care deeply about this dark architecture, but everyone should be concerned about this symbol of our government and what it says about

how we think about it. And when the founders built the White House, they did it as a statement about what the president should be. And he lives in a house, not a palace. And that is so essential to what our democracy is. What are some of the other clues in the architecture in this area as to the idea that this is a republic? It's got a particular form of government. The decision to build this in a neoclassical style was also very deliberate. This is a style that harkens back to ancient Rome and Greece where democracy was founded. It's based on, as I mentioned, symmetry, hierarchy, restraint, dignity, elegance.

In elegance, there is power. And that's why the White House almost cut your breath when you see it. Is this for you also about the rule of law as well as the rule of aesthetics? Exactly. The idea that the president could do this without observing the rule of law is it should be an affront to every American. He is not a king. The judge found Trump should have asked Congress to approve such a project. Now, the White House did not respond to our request for comment, but the president has time to appeal and complained on social media that the National Trust doesn't appreciate his efforts at, quote, brucing up, the Capitol's architecture. Alison Hoagland, the woman who has standing in the case, contends that Washington's current architecture sends the same message that the law does.

Not even the president gets to do everything he wants. And before we wrap up, a thank you to our NPR Plus supporters who hear each show without sponsored messages and, of course, who help protect independent journalism. If you are not a supporter yet, you can visit plus.npr.org to find out how you can get a ton of podcast. podcast perks across dozens of NPR shows, like bonus episodes, exclusive merchandise, and more. Again, that's plus.npr.org. I'm Scott Detrow. Thanks for listening to Trump's Terms from NPR.