Who approved the construction and funding for Obama's White House basketball court?

1. What actually happened: a retrofit, not a palace overhaul

Contemporary White House material and subsequent fact‑checks describe the 2009 change as an adaptation of the existing outdoor tennis court so it could be used for both tennis and basketball — essentially adding hoops and court markings rather than constructing a new building or demolishing wings of the White House ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Who approved it and who paid for it: available sources do not name an approving official, and funding is unclear

None of the provided reports names a specific official who formally “approved” the modest conversion; they instead cite White House statements that President Obama had the tennis court adapted ^{[1] [2]}. On funding, multiple outlets and fact‑checks say there is no evidence taxpayer funds paid for an expensive project and that the upgrade was “likely privately funded,” though precise payer details are not disclosed in the cited sources ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

3. The viral claim and the facts: why the numbers don’t match

Posts circulating the $300–$376 million figure appear to conflate or invent costs far above realistic prices for an outdoor court retrofit; reporting and experts cited by fact‑checkers note that high‑grade outdoor courts typically cost in the tens of thousands to low hundreds of thousands of dollars, and no credible documentation supports the millions‑plus figures attributed to Obama’s court ^{[3] [2] [1]}.

4. How context of later controversies shaped the narrative

The resurrection of the basketball‑court story took place amid 2025 controversy over a separately reported multimillion‑dollar ballroom project at the White House under President Trump; outlets and fact‑checkers show the Obama court narrative was often used as a political counterpoint, which helped amplify inaccurate or unverified dollar amounts in social media posts ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

5. Competing interpretations in reporting

Most mainstream fact‑checks (Snopes, Hindustan Times, Market Realist) present the same basic findings: the work was modest, the formal cost was not disclosed, and there is no evidence of a $300m+ taxpayer tab ^{[1] [2] [5]}. Some partisan or opinion pieces continue to assert large costs or imply impropriety without documentary support ^[4], illustrating how different outlets choose either verification or amplification.

6. What remains unknown and why that matters

Sources consistently say the White House did not publish a line‑item cost for the adaptation and that precise funding (personal payment by the Obamas, private donations, or some other mechanism) is not publicly documented in the provided reporting; available sources do not mention a named approver or a detailed invoice ^{[3] [2] [1]}. That absence allows speculation and gives viral claims room to grow.

7. The journalism takeaway: check scale and provenance before sharing

The episode demonstrates a common pattern: a small, verifiable fact (a tennis court was adapted for basketball) becomes a vehicle for large, unverified monetary claims that get traction during heated political debates; verified reporting in the sources recommends relying on primary White House statements and independent fact‑checks rather than viral social posts ^{[1] [2]}.

Limitations: this piece relies only on the provided sources; if you want procurement records, White House budgets, or direct statements naming an approver or payment trail, those documents are not present in the supplied reporting and would require additional records requests or archival searches (available sources do not mention those records) ^{[1] [2]}.