Preservationists ask court to stop White House paint testing on historic Eisenhower Building

Plaintiffs in a Washington lawsuit want a judge to block planned paint testing on the Eisenhower Executive Office Building before work begins as soon as Aug. 3. They say the White House cannot sidestep historic-preservation and environmental review laws by taking over a project Congress assigned to the General Services Administration.

Why it matters: - The Eisenhower Executive Office Building is a National Historic Landmark and one of the most visible federal buildings in Washington. - Plaintiffs say the case could decide whether a White House project can bypass preservation and environmental review rules by shifting authority away from the General Services Administration. - Preservation experts warn the proposed coating work could damage historic granite and create long-term maintenance needs.

What happened: - Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction in Case No. 1:25-cv-03969-DLF late on July 30, 2026. - The motion asks the court to stop planned paint testing on the Eisenhower Executive Office Building while the judge decides whether the White House lawfully took control of the project from GSA. - The Trump Administration announced on July 20 that it plans to apply white mineral silicate paint and then try to remove it from portions of the building, and to cut out sections of stone for off-site study. - Plaintiffs say that work could begin as soon as Aug. 3.

The details: - The building, completed in 1888 and adjoining the White House, has served presidents for nearly 150 years. - Plaintiffs say the White House Office of Administration took over responsibility for the project from GSA, even though GSA is the agency Congress charged with protecting the building. - The renewed motion says the testing itself is part of the challenged project, not just preparation for it. - Plaintiffs argue OA claims it is not subject to the National Historic Preservation Act or the National Environmental Policy Act, and that OA actions are not subject to judicial review. - Earlier this year, plaintiffs withdrew an earlier emergency request after the government told the court it would not move forward without first showing compliance with NHPA and NEPA. - Plaintiffs now say the White House has changed course by announcing physical testing before the authority question is resolved. - The White House has not disclosed basic details about the testing plan, including who would perform the work. - Greg Werkheiser, a founding partner of Cultural Heritage Partners and one of the plaintiffs, questioned whether the same people involved in other recent projects would handle the testing. - Cultural Heritage Partners, Greg Werkheiser, Marion Forsyth Werkheiser, and the DC Preservation League are the plaintiffs.

Between the lines: - The dispute is about more than paint. It is about whether a presidential administration can move a project outside the review process Congress created for federal historic properties. - Plaintiffs are trying to preserve the status quo before any irreversible testing or surface preparation starts. - If the court accepts the plaintiffs’ theory, the case could limit how far a president can centralize control over preservation-sensitive work on federal landmarks. - If the government prevails, the decision could weaken the practical reach of federal preservation protections for other historic sites.

What's next: - The court will decide whether to grant emergency relief and pause testing. - If the judge finds OA lacks authority, plaintiffs want GSA to complete the reviews required by NHPA and NEPA before any project work proceeds. - The case may also turn on whether the court views the White House transfer of project control as a lawful management move or an attempt to avoid review requirements.

The bottom line: - The immediate fight is over paint testing, but the bigger question is whether the White House can sidestep preservation law by taking over a historic-building project.