DOJ Insists Trump Could 'Bulldoze' Statue of Liberty and No One Could Sue

A Justice Department lawyer argued at a federal appeals court hearing this week that no one would have legal standing to sue if the president decided to 'bulldoze' the Statue of Liberty. Because by the time courts could act, the harm would be irreversible. The assertion came as the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit reviewed a lawsuit by the National Trust for Historic Preservation challenging the demolition of the White House's East Wing to make way for a new ballroom.

The panel explored whether preservation groups can intervene once a demolition project begins, and whether the speed of construction can effectively remove judicial oversight entirely.

'Once Harm Is Done, Courts Cannot Reverse It'

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth argued the National Trust for Historic Preservation lacks standing because courts cannot reverse the alleged harm. The former East Wing is already demolished, and the replacement structure is advancing. Roth noted the site holds more than 3 million pounds of steel rebar.

Judge Patricia Millett questioned this aggressive timeline. She challenged the administration over what she described as a move fast and break things strategy.

'If you move fast enough, nobody has standing to challenge it,' she asked. 'I do think that that is correct,' Roth replied. 'The injury, it becomes non-redressable.'

Statue of Liberty Hypothetical Draws Gasps at DC Circuit

The discussion escalated when Judge Millett presented a hypothetical scenario. She asked what would happen if the government quickly destroyed the Statue of Liberty before descendants could sue.

'[If] the government moved too fast, nothing can be done,' Millett asked. 'I think that's right, yes,' Roth responded. This admission reportedly caused audible gasps among observing attendees.

Earlier, Millett asked if any judicial body was powerless to stop the construction. 'Yes,' Roth answered, confirming the stance. 'I think it would have been improper to enjoin it, even on day one,' he added.

Panel Challenges DOJ's Claimed Source of Demolition Authority

The panel, including Judge Bradley Garcia and Judge Neomi Rao, appeared highly sceptical of the arguments. Garcia pointed out that previous statutes strictly concern White House maintenance.

'[The statute] does not say the president is authorised to make improvements,' Garcia observed. 'This cannot be a source of authority for demolishing and replacing part of the construction.' Rao also highlighted a missing connection concerning the Office of the Executive Residence.

Despite these questions, the Justice Department maintained that blocking the development introduces severe risks. Roth framed the dispute as a conflict between preservationist preferences and executive safety.

'It's an architectural preference on one hand, and the safety and security of the president of the United States, on the other hand,' Roth explained. He specified the old wing 'was not adequate.'

The new facility must withstand modern weaponry. The space must serve as a location where 'the president and the leadership of the government have a place to go that is highly secure in the event that there is an attack.'

Project Resumed After April Stay Despite District Court Ruling Against It

The National Trust relies on its congressional charter, granting the organisation power to safeguard historic locations. However, the administration aims to dismiss the legal intervention entirely.

In late March, US District Judge Richard Leon ruled the ballroom exceeded presidential authority and halted work. The appellate panel issued a stay on 17 April, allowing builders to resume efforts.

As judges deliberate, the court battle remains unresolved. The pending decision will determine the boundaries of executive power concerning historic properties.