How much did the Obama basketball court cost and who paid for it?
Executive summary
Claims that President Barack Obama spent $376 million (or similar hundreds-of-millions figures) to build a White House basketball court are false according to multiple fact-checks; the court was created by adapting an existing White House tennis court in 2009 and no government budget line shows a $376M expense [1] [2]. Contemporary reporting and fact checks say the work was a modest adaptation—likely privately funded or paid at low cost—and plausible marketplace estimates put a similar conversion in the low five-figures, not hundreds of millions [3] [4].
1. Origin of the court: adaptation, not a new palace
Shortly after taking office, President Obama had the existing White House tennis court adapted so it could be used for both tennis and basketball; sources describe this as adding removable hoops and court markings rather than building a new structure from the ground up [1] [3]. The tennis court itself dated back decades and was repurposed for dual use rather than replaced, according to the Obama White House archives cited in contemporary fact-checking [3].
2. The viral figure — how the $376M claim spread
Social posts circulating in late 2025 juxtaposed the alleged “$376 million” cost of Obama’s court with other White House projects to suggest hypocrisy; those posts amplified a wildly inflated number that has no documentary trace in federal budgets or White House records [5] [2]. Fact-checkers traced the claim to social media and partisan commentary but found no line-item or contract to support any figure close to that amount [1] [2].
3. What the fact-checks actually found
Multiple outlets that examined the claim concluded the $376M (or $300–$375M) number is astronomically higher than realistic estimates and unsupported by budget documents; they call the viral figure false or debunked [2] [1] [3]. Snopes and other fact-checking reports explicitly note the White House simply adapted the tennis court and that the story of a lavish, taxpayer-funded multihundred-million-dollar basketball project is inaccurate [1].
4. Who paid for the adaptation — limited certainty in sources
Available reporting repeatedly states that no government budget documentation shows an earmark for a massive court project and that evidence suggests the adaptation was privately funded or paid at modest cost; however, the exact payor or contract amount is not published in the sources provided [2] [3]. Hindustan Times and other pieces say the court was “likely privately funded,” but none of the supplied sources produces a definitive invoice or donor list [6] [3].
5. Reasonable cost estimates from market and investigative pieces
Independent price estimates and reporting place the plausible cost for converting or outfitting an existing outdoor court in the low five figures to perhaps up to low six figures for high-end work—not hundreds of millions. One price-analysis piece gives a plausible range of roughly $7,000–$10,000 for a minimal conversion, while other reporting suggests high-end court construction today runs $50,000–$200,000—orders of magnitude below $376M [4] [6]. Fact-checkers emphasize that the viral number is “astronomically higher” than any realistic estimate [2].
6. Political context and why the myth persists
The claim resurfaced amid debates about other White House construction projects and was weaponized to draw a contrast between presidents; some outlets and partisan commentators repeated the inflated figure [7] [5]. Fact-checking outlets warn that emotional political framing and selective comparisons drive the spread of such false equivalences, while archival descriptions of the modest 2009 adaptation are overlooked [1] [5].
7. Limits of the public record and outstanding questions
Sources consistently note a lack of a published, line-item cost or official invoice for the 2009 adaptation; therefore, while reporting and subject-matter pricing make the $376M figure implausible, the precise dollar amount and the definitive payor are not documented in the available sources [3] [1]. In other words, fact checks can debunk the viral $376M claim and show the work was minor, but they cannot produce an official single-sentence receipt showing who paid every dollar [4] [2].
8. Bottom line for readers
Do not accept the $376 million figure: it is unsupported by budget records and contradicted by multiple fact-checks, which describe the work as an adaptation likely financed privately or at modest public cost and estimate plausible expenses in the low five- to low six-figure range at most [1] [3] [4]. If you need an exact invoice or donor list, available sources do not mention a specific payment record or detailed accounting for the 2009 adaptation [3] [2].