THE APEX TIMES
In an argument before a U.S. appeals court, the Department of Justice cited a foiled plan tied to a White House outdoor UFC event as part of its case for a proposed White House ballroom on security grounds.
The Department of Justice argued before a federal appeals court on Tuesday that an alleged, foiled plot connected to an outdoor UFC event at the White House over the weekend shows why President Donald Trump’s proposed ballroom is needed for security purposes, according to a senior DOJ official who addressed the court.
Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, who leads the DOJ’s Civil Division, made the argument during the proceeding, The Hill reported. Shumate told the court that the weekend threat demonstrates the practical security challenges that can arise when events are staged outdoors at the White House, particularly when protective operations require controlled access, perimeter management, and rapid coordination.
The DOJ official’s remarks tied the alleged plot to its broader position in the litigation over the ballroom proposal. The Hill reported that Shumate framed the alleged incident as additional context for the government’s security justification, urging the appeals court to accept that rationale as it considered the legal issues raised in the case.
The ballroom proposal has been a recurring point of dispute in the litigation, with opponents challenging the government’s stated grounds and timelines while the administration has argued the project is necessary to support secure event operations at the White House. In Tuesday’s argument, the DOJ emphasized the asserted link between the claimed threat environment and the administration’s security plan, The Hill said.
The proceedings took place in federal court in connection with an ongoing dispute over the ballroom, with the DOJ’s Civil Division representing the government’s position in its effort to sustain the administration’s approach. No additional details about the case, the specific court, or the underlying claims were provided in the report beyond Shumate’s courtroom argument and the weekend incident reference.
Beyond the courtroom exchange, the episode underscores how federal courts can be asked to weigh government security claims against other legal considerations, including the scope of government authority for infrastructure tied to presidential operations and the standards for permitting or moving forward with such projects.
A decision in the matter would determine how the litigation affects the ballroom proposal’s status and any related steps, depending on the appeals court’s ruling and what happens next in the federal process.