Preservationist groups have sued President Donald Trump to halt his plans to paint the Eisenhower Executive Office Building white, alleging that the proposed changes could cause irreversible damage and violate federal preservation laws.
The lawsuit was filed on Friday by the DC Preservation League and Cultural Heritage Partners in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It seeks to prevent Trump and federal officials from making any alterations to the building without undergoing standard environmental and historic preservation reviews, as mandated by law. The plaintiffs argue that bypassing these procedures could lead to permanent harm to the historic structure, emphasizing the legal requirements for such modifications.
Trump revealed his intention to repaint the building during a recent interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, stating that he was obtaining cost estimates and bids from painters. He criticized the current gray granite exterior, remarking, “Gray is for funerals,” and expressed that a white finish would be “a great addition to Washington.” While he indicated uncertainty about proceeding, the announcement prompted immediate legal action from preservation advocates concerned about precedent and compliance.
This initiative is part of a broader pattern where Trump has imposed his aesthetic preferences on federal properties. Previous projects include paving over the White House Rose Garden to create a patio reminiscent of his Mar-a-Lago estate, demolishing the East Wing to construct a massive ballroom, and ordering the golden pillars of the Kennedy Center to be painted white. Trump has also promoted plans for a triumphal arch to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. founding, further highlighting his focus on altering federal landmarks.
The legal complaint details that painting the stone exterior could trap moisture within the wall system, accelerating deterioration and potentially causing the loss of original materials. It notes that removing paint from the natural granite and slate would require immense expense and could damage the structure irreparably. Greg Werkheiser, a founding partner of Cultural Heritage Partners, described the envisioned white building as resembling “a giant marshmallow” but stressed that the lawsuit centers on legal compliance rather than aesthetic disagreements.
Completed in 1888, the Eisenhower Executive Office Building originally housed the State, War, and Navy departments and now serves as office space for key presidential staff, including the vice president and the National Security Council. Its French Second Empire architecture features 553 ornately gilded rooms, bronze stair balusters, hand-painted tiles, stained glass rotundas, and intricate cast iron. Despite its historical significance, the building has long been controversial, with author Mark Twain reportedly calling it “the ugliest building in America” and President Harry Truman labeling it a “monstrosity.”
The plaintiffs’ legal team plans to seek a preliminary injunction on an emergency basis and a restraining order to prevent any alterations until the court reviews the case. Werkheiser argued that the Constitution obligates the president to follow laws, and after the East Wing demolition, there is no justification for avoiding established processes. He stated, “After the East Wing debacle, no reasonable person could say, ‘Well the president wasn’t on notice that these laws apply or that he needed to take additional care.'”
This legal challenge may set a precedent for how presidential administrations approach changes to historic federal buildings, balancing executive authority with preservation obligations. It reflects broader debates over the protection of cultural heritage versus modernization in government properties, with potential implications for future projects and the stewardship of national landmarks in the capital.
