How much did the Obama White House basketball court cost and when was it installed?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive Summary
The claim that President Barack Obama spent $376 million on a White House basketball court is false; available analyses show no budgetary record tying that figure to a court project and identify the $376 million number with broader East/West Wing infrastructure work, not a recreational court [1] [2]. The White House basketball facility used by the Obamas was an adaptation of an existing tennis court—updated with hoops and markings around 2009—and estimates from reporting and fact checks place a realistic private-sector cost in the tens to low hundreds of thousands of dollars, not hundreds of millions, while the precise account of funding has not been publicly itemized [1] [3] [4].
1. How the $376 million figure got misapplied and why it’s misleading
Analysts tracing the origin of the $376 million claim find it conflates two separate matters: a documented Obama-era renovation project aimed at updating East and West Wing infrastructure and a much smaller-scale sports court adaptation on the South Lawn. Reporting notes a 2010 renovation estimate of roughly $376 million for infrastructure improvements, largely underground work, not for demolition or building of new recreational facilities, yet social-media claims repurposed that aggregate renovation figure as a cost for a basketball court—an inference unsupported by budget records [2] [5]. Fact checks emphasize that no public budget line item from 2009–2016 allocates $376 million to a court, and the leap from a broad renovation total to a single amenity cost lacks documentary foundation [1].
2. What actually changed at the White House: tennis court to multiuse court in 2009
Contemporaneous descriptions and later fact-checking state that the White House already had an outdoor tennis court installed in the 1950s and that, soon after Obama took office, that court was adapted to accommodate full-court basketball by adding hoops and court markings—allowing dual tennis and basketball use rather than creating an entirely new facility [1] [4] [6]. This was presented as a modest, low-key update rather than a major construction project; the physical change was largely equipment and surface markings, not extensive demolition or new construction, which aligns with the absence of a large procurement or capital outlay in budget documents covering that period [3] [1].
3. Reasonable cost estimates and the funding question
Multiple fact checks and reporting estimate that a high-end private outdoor court conversion would more plausibly cost on the order of tens to low hundreds of thousands of dollars—commonly cited ranges are about $50,000 to $200,000 for comparable work—far below the viral $376 million claim [1] [3]. Those analyses also conclude there is no evidence taxpayers paid a huge sum for the court, with official budgets and appropriations for 2009–2016 showing no earmark for a new athletic facility; at the same time, the White House has historically funded certain aesthetic and furnishing updates through private donations or nonfederal sources, which complicates definitive attribution when a specific invoice has not been publicly disclosed [1] [2].
4. Cross-checking the record: what official documentation shows and what remains unverified
Review of the available documentation shows a clear transparency on the large-scale East/West Wing infrastructure project and a clear absence of a $376 million allocation tied to athletic facilities. Fact-checkers note that official budget records through 2016 include no line item for constructing a new basketball court, which undermines the viral figure’s claim that taxpayers funded such a project at that magnitude [1]. The specific dollar amount for the equipment-and-markings adaptation has not been publicly itemized by the White House, leaving room for plausible private funding or modest federal expense—but not for a multi-hundred-million-dollar outlay based on the documents reviewed [3] [7].
5. Competing narratives, likely motives, and what to watch for going forward
The persistence of the $376 million claim reflects a common pattern where large, legitimate government expenditures are misapplied to smaller, more politically salient items to create outrage; in this case, the $376 million infrastructure figure became a rhetorical vehicle for criticizing perceived excesses, despite a lack of documentary linkage to the court [2] [5]. Fact-checks published in late October and early November 2025 rebut the claim with the same core findings: adaptation from an existing tennis court around 2009, plausible low-to-mid six-figure conversion costs, and no evidence of a $376 million taxpayer-funded basketball project [1] [3]. Future clarity would require release of specific procurement records or invoices for the 2009 adaptation, which would settle the remaining funding uncertainty.