Eisenhower Executive Office Building

By Zak Failla From Daily Voice

A preservation law firm with deep roots in Washington is suing President Donald Trump’s administration in federal court, accusing officials of fast-tracking a plan to paint the Eisenhower Executive Office Building bright white and, in the process, breaking federal environmental and historic preservation laws.

Cultural Heritage Partners, based a few blocks from the White House, and the DC Preservation League filed the lawsuit this week in Washington, DC.

In the complaint, they say Trump’s plan to “clean, repoint, and repaint” the dark granite exterior of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building — a National Historic Landmark that sits next to the White House — would “fundamentally change its historic appearance and character” without the public review required by federal law.

The suit names Trump, the General Services Administration, the National Park Service, and top officials at both agencies as defendants.

The filing cites a Fox News interview this week in which Trump described his plan to paint the entire building white and showed mock-ups of the building covered in pale paint. 

According to the complaint, Trump called the all-white look “beautiful” and dismissed the building’s current gray granite with the line, “Gray is for funerals.”

The lawsuit says Trump also told host Laura Ingraham he was “getting bids right now from painters,” which the groups argue shows the project is already moving forward even though no environmental or preservation review has been made public.

The Eisenhower Executive Office Building, sometimes called the Old Executive Office Building or the State, War, and Navy Building, opened in 1888. 

The complaint describes it as “one of the most historically significant buildings in the United States” and “one of the country’s most significant examples of 19th-century federal architecture,” with a dark, polished granite facade, slate roof, domes, and ornate ironwork.

It is a National Historic Landmark, listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and a key piece of the larger historic district that includes President’s Park, Lafayette Square, and the White House complex.

“Regardless of who occupies the White House, our nation’s historic landmarks belong to the American people,” Cultural Heritage Partners founding partner Greg Werkheiser said in the press release announcing the lawsuit.

“Federal law requires a careful, public, and expert review before irreversible changes are made to a National Historic Landmark,” he said. “We are filing this lawsuit to ensure that these long-standing protections are honored and that the public gets the transparency and due process the law guarantees.”

The complaint argues that painting previously unpainted stone on a 19th-century landmark is not just cosmetic. 

It says painting the EEOB’s granite could “trap moisture within the wall system, accelerate deterioration, and cause masonry to crack or spall,” and that removing paint later would likely damage the original stone.

The groups say that makes the change “in practice, a permanent alteration” to the building’s historic fabric.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, federal agencies must take a “hard look” at the environmental and cultural impacts of major actions and allow for public input before moving forward. The National Historic Preservation Act also requires consultation and specific steps when federal projects could harm historic landmarks.

The lawsuit claims none of that has happened.

According to the complaint, there has been no Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, no public notice, and no consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the DC State Historic Preservation Office, or other required parties.

The groups also say federal agencies are ignoring heightened protections that apply when a project may “directly and adversely affect” a National Historic Landmark — protections that require agencies “to the maximum extent possible” to plan around harm and “minimize” it.

The DC Preservation League said the plan threatens not just the building, but the wider historic core around the White House.

“The EEOB is an important landmark in the city of Washington, and significant efforts have been made to preserve its integrity, particularly during its most recent multi-phased rehabilitation in 2014,” DC Preservation League Executive Director Rebecca Miller said.

The complaint also points to what it describes as a pattern out of the current White House: it notes the recent “complete demolition of the White House’s East Wing” to make room for a ballroom, which it says happened “without public notice, without expert consultation, and before any NEPA or NHPA review was initiated.”

The filing argues that secrecy around that project — including reports of workers signing nondisclosure agreements — makes Trump’s comments about contractors for the Eisenhower building more urgent, and suggests the painting project is “not hypothetical or speculative, but imminent.”

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to immediately block any cleaning, repointing, or repainting of the Eisenhower building’s exterior that could “prejudice or predetermine” the outcome of the required reviews.

It also asks the court to order the General Services Administration and National Park Service to carry out full environmental and historic preservation processes, including public notice, opportunities for comment, and consultation with regulators and preservation groups, before any change to the building’s exterior moves forward.

“Painting the EEOB a new color and carrying out the associated cleaning and pointing work described by the president constitute a federal ‘undertaking’ that may cause direct and adverse effects to a National Historic Landmark and its historic setting,” the complaint says, arguing that the government “has not ensured that their own actions remain within the bounds of statutes” that protect historic federal property.

“Proper consultation with regulatory agencies and preservation professionals needs to take place before any work occurs," Miller added. "To avoid adverse effects that could be devastating to this irreplaceable historic resource." 

The complete complaint can be read here.