WASHINGTON – Moving forward with President Donald Trump’s vision for a refreshed capital landscape, a federal district judge has permitted preliminary paint examinations on a historic 19th-century landmark near the White House. This paves the way for potential repainting of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
The proposed fresh coat of white paint, part of Trump’s broader initiative to revitalize the aesthetic of Washington D.C., comes with a hefty price tag of at least $7.5 million, according to planning estimates.
However, the plan has sparked concern among preservationists, architects, and historians. They argue that painting the granite structure could lead to significant damage, as the paint might entrap moisture and deteriorate the stone over time.
Presiding over the matter, U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich ruled that the initial testing procedures proposed for the iconic structure wouldn’t inflict irrevocable damage, dismissing claims from plaintiffs who aimed to halt the tests.
These plaintiffs, comprising various cultural preservation groups, attempted to secure a restraining order and temporary injunction to block the Trump administration from proceeding with the planned evaluations and preparatory activities.
At issue was whether that work would get ahead of a larger question before the court over whether the General Services Administration could delegate its authority for such a project to the Executive Office.
“The plaintiffs’ motion rises and falls on irreparable harm,” Friedrich said from the bench. The test areas would include about 8 square feet of the building’s massive exterior and several panels that can’t be seen by the public, she said.
Friedrich said that while she was allowing that test to move ahead, she would not hesitate to step in and rule if the administration moved beyond the limited testing. She asked the parties to provide a status report by next Tuesday and ordered regular reports following that.
Gregory Werkheiser, a lawyer with Cultural Heritage Partners and one of the plaintiffs, said that while he and others challenging the painting plan were disappointed, “the reasons we brought this case are untouched by today’s decision.”
The larger issue, he said, is whether “the president has taken power illegally from the GSA and put it in his office in terms of this project and the implications of that. If that holds true for historic properties around the country, that could be devastating.”
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.