Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How much did the Obama White House basketball court cost and when was it installed?
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.