Preservationists concerned by President Donald Trump’s public musings this week about painting a 137-year-old building next to the White House completely white sued him Friday to halt the work, arguing that he could not unilaterally alter “one of the most architecturally significant and historic structures in the Nation’s Capital.”
Trump had taken aim at the stately Eisenhower Executive Office Building in a television interview that aired Wednesday on FOX, saying “it was always considered an ugly building.” He was particularly irked by its color, which he said was too dour for the White House’s next-door neighbor.
“Gray is for funerals,” he told his interviewer, Laura Ingraham.
Trump vowed to make it “beautiful,” showing Ingraham a mock-up that turned the normally slate gray exterior into a palatial white.
“Look at it, how beautiful that is with a coat of paint,” he said.
The DC Preservation League and Cultural Heritage Partners, a law firm focused on historic preservation, took Trump seriously and scrambled to slow down any plans, given his recent demolition of the East Wing of the White House. On Friday, the groups asked a federal court to issue an emergency injunction prohibiting Trump and other federal officials from altering the building unless they complete legally required reviews. In a 35-page complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs accused Trump of trying to end-run legally-mandated public input into changes to historic buildings — echoing a complaint lodged by critics of his East Wing teardown.
“The Eisenhower Executive Office Building is one of our nation’s most significant architectural landmarks,” Greg Werkheiser, founding partner of the Cultural Heritage Partners law firm, said in a statement. “Any plan to alter that … like the President revealed this week, especially an irreversible action like painting it all white, must be preceded by a transparent public process that includes expert consultation and a full hard look at potential harms.”
The White House did not respond Friday to requests for comment.
The EEOB, as it is commonly known, is a preeminent example of French Second Empire architecture and a National Historic Landmark with a facade of polished granite, slate, and ornate cast-iron trim, according to the General Services Administration. Built between 1871 and 1888 as the home of the State, War and Navy departments, the building now serves as office space for more than 1,500 employees working for the president, vice president, the Treasury Department and Defense Department.
When Ingraham asked Trump whether he was worried his plan would turn the building into “a big white blob,” he was undeterred, saying the all-white approach would bring out the building’s details.
In their suit, the historic preservation advocates said Trump and other federal officials must comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, laws requiring they consult experts and allow public input about possible impacts of proposed renovations.
“Regardless of who occupies the White House, our nation’s historic landmarks belong to the American people,” Werkheiser said. “Federal law requires a careful, public, and expert review before irreversible changes are made to a National Historic Landmark.”
Rebecca Miller, executive director of the DC Preservation League, said her nonprofit has worked with local and federal officials as well as past administrations on proposed changes to federal buildings in D.C. Those efforts followed the law and underwent reviews designed to guarantee public input, she said.
“They create the character we have in the nation’s capital,” Miller said.
Painting a historic building’s uncoated masonry can trap moisture, accelerate deterioration and cause it to crack or crumble, the suit states. That risk of permanent damage has led to preservation standards, including the Interior Department’s, to advise keeping a property’s historic appearance as unchanged as possible and caution against new paint schemes on historic masonry unless they replicate or closely match documented historic finishes, the complaint alleges.
Paint could not be removed from the EEOB’s stone facade without risking its destruction, according to the suit.
“This landmark has survived 137 years without being covered in white paint,” Werkheiser said in a statement. “It won’t hurt the President to take a minute to follow the law.”
Painting the EEOB would be the latest effort by Trump to transform the White House complex. Since taking office, he has paved the Rose Garden, erected a pair of 88-foot-tall flag poles on the North and South lawns, covered the Lincoln Bathroom in marble, and torn down the East Wing of the White House to make room for a 90,000-square foot ballroom building he estimates will cost $300 million.
To cover that, Trump solicited private money, and last month, the White House released a partial list of about three dozen individual and corporate donors, including Amazon, Comcast, Lockheed Martin and other heavy hitters in the technology, financial and defense sectors. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.) A watchdog group found that the donors had received $279 billion in government contracts in the past five years and had sprawling interests that touch almost every aspect of American life.
The post Preservationists sue Trump over plans to paint Eisenhower building
appeared first on Washington Post.
