Politics

Trump's Ballroom Fight Could Make Courts Rethink 'National Security' Deference

Appealing to national security is not a "get-out-of-law-free card," a federal court ruled last week.

Joe Lancaster | 8.12.2026 12:35 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Vladimirfloyd/Dreamstime. Illustration: Fatima Ruiz/Midjourney)

Reason's C.J. Ciaramella wrote last week that the second Trump administration "has lost the confidence of courts," as federal judges increasingly decline to grant U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors the "presumption of regularity" in court proceedings.

While this was less a policy choice than simply the result of President Donald Trump filling the DOJ with underqualified lackeys, Ciaramella noted, "it certainly might not be a bad thing if judges were more skeptical of the government."

A recent ruling on Trump's White House ballroom project suggests something similar could be happening. Courts tend to give the other branches of government considerable leeway when lawmakers invoke national security, but the Trump administration's efforts seem to be undercutting that unearned advantage, as well.

"Though vested with the power to interpret the law and the US Constitution, the federal courts confront issues of national security under significant procedural restraints," political science professor Timothy S. Boylan wrote in 2023.

"Not a single doctrine but a........

© Reason.com