What evidence has the White House presented to justify 'top‑secret' underground work beneath the East Wing, and how have courts treated national security claims in related oversight disputes?

1. What the administration has actually presented: classified declarations and national‑security assertions

In filings defending the project, the Department of Justice and White House lawyers told a federal court that aspects of the East Wing work are “top‑secret” and that stopping underground work would “endanger national security,” anchoring that argument to a classified declaration the government submitted to the judge ^{[2] [1]}. The administration has also told oversight bodies and the court that the work relates to rebuilding or replacing an underground presidential protective facility—historically the Presidential Emergency Operations Center—beneath the East Wing, and that construction must satisfy Secret Service protective‑mission requirements ^{[5] [3]}.

2. Evidence offered in public filings and hearings is limited and redacted

Publicly available materials are sparse: news reports and the court docket note that the government cited a classified declaration to explain why interruption would threaten security, but the contents of that declaration have not been released to the public, and reporters say details remain “top‑secret” ^{[2] [5]}. The administration has also argued that above‑ground plans are not final and that some reviews are “unripe,” while noting that above‑ground construction was not expected to begin until spring 2026, which it used to argue against immediate injunctive relief ^{[6] [1]}.

3. How judges have treated the national‑security claim in this dispute

At hearings, at least one judge allowed demolition and preliminary work to continue temporarily after weighing the government’s national‑security assertions, but the same judge pressed government lawyers on whether the president had authority to undertake the project and whether private funding and procedural bypasses were lawful, displaying clear skepticism even as he declined to halt activity immediately ^{[4] [1]}. Courts have routinely given some deference to classified national‑security claims when properly supported on the record, but here the public record shows judges balancing deference with probing questions about authority, remedy, and the adequacy of the government’s submissions ^{[4] [7]}.

4. Standing, ripeness and remedies have shaped judicial responses

The administration has also argued the plaintiff (the National Trust for Historic Preservation) lacks standing or that some claims are moot because demolition already occurred, and it contends future construction plans are not yet final and therefore unripe for review ^{[1] [6]}. Preservationists counter that the teardown and ongoing subterranean work deprived them of required reviews and statutory processes; courts have thus been forced to sort threshold disputes—standing, ripeness, adequacy of procedural review—before fully adjudicating the merits of national‑security assertions ^{[8] [9]}.

5. What remains unresolved and why it matters

Key facts remain hidden behind the government’s classification assertions: the specific nature of the underground facilities, the contents of the classified declaration relied upon in court, and whether the Secret Service’s protective‑mission needs could be met with less drastic procedural bypasses—questions that cannot be answered from public reporting alone ^{[2] [5]}. The judicial record shows courts will entertain national‑security claims but will scrutinize them against statutory and constitutional boundaries, leaving the dispute poised for further litigation where greater detail—possibly in camera or under protective order—will determine whether national‑security deference suffices to overcome preservation and procedural objections ^{[4] [7]}.