Preservation groups have asked a federal court for an emergency injunction to stop planned paint testing on the historic Eisenhower Executive Office Building, saying tests could be a prelude to a full repaint that would damage the landmark. Plaintiffs argue the project was shifted from GSA to the White House to sidestep required public-review and environmental safeguards. Experts warn a mineral silicate coating would require invasive preparation that could weaken the building’s historic granite. The case raises broader questions about whether the Executive Office can evade laws that protect historic places.
Preservationists Move to Block White House Paint Tests on Historic Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building; Donald TrumpCredit: Raymond Boyd/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty; Mandel NGAN / AFP via Getty
Preservation groups are asking a federal court for an emergency injunction to stop the White House from conducting paint tests on the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB), arguing the tests are a precursor to a broader repainting that could permanently harm the 19th-century landmark.
What Plaintiffs Allege
In a renewed motion filed July 30, Cultural Heritage Partners and the DC Preservation League seek to halt paint-sample work the White House has said could begin as early as Aug. 3. The plaintiffs contend the testing exceeds a neutral feasibility study and instead serves as an initial step toward implementing President Donald Trump’s plan to coat the EEOB with a mineral silicate or similar finish.
The Dwight Eisenhower Executive Office Building is seen on August 18, 2024, in Washington, DC.Credit: J. David Ake/Getty
Legal and Preservation Concerns
The suit alleges the project was transferred from the General Services Administration (GSA) to the White House Office of Administration to avoid the public-review and environmental safeguards that normally apply to federal preservation projects. Plaintiffs say the White House has not disclosed who would perform the testing or provided essential technical details about the proposed work.
"This is a terrible idea," said Greg Werkheiser, founding partner of Cultural Heritage Partners. "The American people deserve the transparency required by law."
Preservation experts warn that applying a mineral silicate coating to historic granite would require invasive surface preparation that could weaken the stone, strip original fabric, and result in ongoing maintenance and repair costs. The plaintiffs argue those risks make careful review and public participation essential under federal preservation and environmental statutes.
President Donald Trump during an announcement in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DCCredit: Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty
Case Background and Stakes
The lawsuit was filed two days after the president unveiled the repainting proposal in November 2025. Named plaintiffs include Cultural Heritage Partners, firm founders Greg and Marion Werkheiser, and the DC Preservation League; U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich is overseeing the litigation. The Justice Department has moved to dismiss the initial complaint, and plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint with the court’s permission.
Trump's Position
Mr. Trump has publicly defended the plan as a way to "beautify" the building, showing a rendering during a November 2025 interview. "Look at that, how beautiful that is with a coat of paint," he said, arguing the changes would highlight architectural detail. He has also criticized the building's current gray appearance, quipping that "gray is for funerals."
The dispute raises broader questions about whether the Executive Office of the President may transfer projects to avoid statutory review requirements that apply to other federal agencies — a legal issue the court will weigh alongside preservation-specific claims.
Help us improve.
