President Donald Trump says the White House’s new $400 million ballroom is being built with steel and concrete so strong that even a determined Democratic successor would be unable to remove it, a claim that comes as the Supreme Court narrowly allowed construction to proceed over historic preservation objections.

During an Oval Office interview and a tour of the ongoing construction, Trump described his vision for the controversial new addition, which is rising where the East Wing once stood. He claimed the project’s materials are “used in nuclear power plants” and insisted, “I’m not sure you could take it down.” The ballroom, estimated at 90,000 square feet, roughly twice the size of the main White House residence, features bulletproof windows, a rooftop drone port, and an underground bunker, according to Trump. “It’s meant for if there’s a nuclear attack,” he told New York magazine reporter Ben Terris, adding, “I don’t think they could, physically,” when asked whether a future Democratic administration could undo the project.

Trump’s remarks come just days after the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 order permitting construction to continue, despite a lawsuit filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The Court’s majority concluded that the nonprofit group likely lacked legal standing to sue, but did not rule on the underlying legality of the demolition required for the ballroom’s construction. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent, writing that the project was likely unlawful without congressional approval, a sharp split that echoes recent high-profile court battles over executive power, including those highlighted in cases such as the federal block on Trump’s mail-in voting order.

Trump framed the ballroom not just as a legacy project, but as a national security asset. He described the structure’s defenses in almost fortress-like terms, claiming that “a jackhammer operating at full blast for two days would leave no mark” on its reinforced frame. The president asserted that private donors are funding the project, though his administration has not released full financing details. The ballroom’s scale, its price tag and size, has drawn further scrutiny, especially as preservation advocates question the loss of historic elements and the lack of congressional oversight. The Supreme Court’s order did not resolve those deeper questions, leaving the legal landscape unsettled for now.

While the courtroom clash over the White House ballroom is unique, it fits a pattern of legal and political resistance to Trump’s initiatives, whether from judicial rulings or partisan opposition. Similar showdowns have played out in other spheres, from federal judges defying Supreme Court precedent on immigration protections to the high court itself taking up landmark battles over presidential and state authority, as seen in recent Second Amendment cases. Trump’s approach has often been to build, literally and metaphorically, in ways designed to outlast his term and frustrate the designs of his political opponents.

The project’s particulars remain shrouded in some mystery. Full details on its financing have not been disclosed, and the Supreme Court’s ruling sidestepped the core issue of whether such a massive alteration to the White House requires approval from Congress. The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s broader challenge to the demolition is still unresolved, and with dissents like Chief Justice Roberts’s noting potential illegality without legislative signoff, the ballroom’s future may not be as unmovable as Trump predicts.

Still, the president’s strategy, using private funds and nuclear-grade construction, reflects a familiar Trump theme: build big, build to last, and dare opponents to undo the work. This approach has attracted fierce pushback not just at home, but also on the global stage, as seen with foreign leaders opposing Trump’s security initiatives, including Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s rejection of Trump’s Gaza disarmament plan.

For now, with the Supreme Court’s divided order in his favor, Trump’s ballroom project advances, setting up a test not just of architectural endurance, but of how far a determined president can reshape the nation’s most famous address in the face of political and legal resistance. The outcome will offer another measure of whether the institutions meant to check executive power are up to the challenge, or whether, in Trump’s words, “they couldn’t, physically,” undo what has been built.

Americans who value constitutional order should look closely at who is willing to respect the law, and who is determined to use every lever of power, concrete and steel, to get their way.