Preservationists sue over Trump’s latest plans to refashion a federal building to match his aesthetic

By Piper HudspethBlackburn, Betsy Klein, CNN

(CNN) — Historic preservationists sued President Donald Trump over his plans to paint an ornate office building housing his staff next to the White House, warning the structure could be “irreversibly” damaged.”

The suit, filed Friday by the DC Preservation League and Cultural Heritage Partners, asks the US District Court for the District of Columbia to stop Trump and federal officials from making any changes to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building unless they go through a standard review process.

CNN has reached out to the White House for comment.

Trump told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham in an interview last week that he was putting the wheels in motion to paint the Eisenhower building, a sprawling, Gilded Age structure next door to the White House, a bright white.

“Gray is for funerals,” he said, referring to the building’s granite exterior, noting that he didn’t know whether he would go through with it, but that he was getting costs and bids from painters.

“We’ll see. It’d be a great addition to Washington,” he added.

Trump’s plans to paint the building signaled yet another effort to stamp his aesthetic tastes on structures on federal grounds. As part of those efforts, Trump has paved over the White House Rose Garden to create a Mar-a-Lago-esque patio, demolished the East Wing to create a massive ballroom, and ordered the golden pillars of the Kennedy Center painted white. He has also touted plans to install a triumphal arch to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the United State’s founding.

The suit argues the Trump administration cannot move forward with the president’s plans without going through “the environmental and historic preservation review that federal law requires.”

Going around those reviews could result in irreversible damage, the groups argue. Painting stone “can trap moisture within the wall system” and accelerate deterioration, the suit says. It adds that if the building was painted, “removing paint from the natural granite and slate would require immense expense” and potentially result in the loss of the original material.

The proposed plans of a white Eisenhower building “looked like a giant marshmallow,” said Greg Werkheiser, founding partner of Cultural Heritage Partners, the law firm that filed the suit.

“But our complaint isn’t about the president’s taste,” Werkheiser said. “You can have really bad taste. You can have really good taste. What we’re asking for is you comply with the law.”

Completed in 1888, the Eisenhower building originally housed the State, War and Navy departments, but now serves as ancillary office space for the president’s staff, including the Office of the Vice President, the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The building’s interior includes 553 ornately gilded rooms, bronze stair balusters, hand-painted tiles, carved wooden fixtures, stained glass rotundas and intricate cast iron.

But the building’s unique French Second Empire style has been controversial since its inception. It took roughly 17 years to build, and by the time it was done, “the Second Empire style had fallen from favor, and (architect Alfred) Mullett’s masterpiece was perceived by capricious Victorians as only an embarrassing reminder of past whims in architectural preference,” according to the Biden White House.

Guides leading tourists around the White House complex are often heard quoting from the author Mark Twain, who reportedly described it as “the ugliest building in America.”

And President Harry Truman called it a “monstrosity.”

Werkheiser’s firm will ask for a preliminary injunction Monday on an emergency basis — but it will also ask the judge to issue a restraining order to prevent Trump from ordering alterations to the building until the court evaluates the case.

Werkheiser’s team will seek to make the case that the Constitution “says the president is obligated to take care, to follow the laws,” he told CNN.

“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,’” he said. “The extensiveness of the outrage of that incident eliminates any excuse he has to pretend he can go quickly and avoid this process.”

This story has been updated with additional information.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.