Transforming the Historic Eisenhower Executive Office Building Exterior

President Donald Trump’s proposal to paint the historic Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) white—a 19th-century granite landmark adjacent to the White House—has sparked controversy and drawn scrutiny from preservationists, architects, and federal agencies tasked with protecting the nation’s architectural heritage. The plan, which could cost at least $7.5 million for the exterior alone, is now under review by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, both of which must approve any changes to the building’s appearance.

The EEOB, a National Historic Landmark and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, has stood since 1888, its gray granite exterior a defining feature of the White House grounds. Trump, however, has publicly criticized the building’s color, calling it a “really bad color” and advocating for a dramatic transformation. In April, White House officials presented two options to the NCPC: painting the entire granite facade white or applying paint to most of the building while leaving the base in its original stone. The administration prefers the full paint job, citing concerns about the building’s stained and “greatly disrepair” exterior.

Yet experts and preservation groups warn that painting granite—a material not designed to be painted—could trap moisture, accelerate stone deterioration, and permanently alter a landmark. The Society of Architectural Historians, in a letter to the NCPC, argued that the project “will adversely and permanently alter this important part of American heritage and should be rejected.” Public opposition has been overwhelming, with thousands of comments submitted to the NCPC opposing the plan on both preservation and fiscal grounds. Many suggested alternative improvements, such as enhanced landscaping or lighting, as more cost-effective and heritage-friendly solutions.

During a recent NCPC meeting, White House officials acknowledged that the proposed “silicate paint” is still undergoing testing on granite samples, with no on-site trials possible on the EEOB itself. The process, they said, cannot be rushed. The commission did not approve the project at its May 7 meeting but directed the White House to provide additional technical details before any further consideration. Meanwhile, a lawsuit challenging the paint job is making its way through federal court, adding another layer of legal and bureaucratic hurdles to the proposal.

The EEOB is just one part of Trump’s broader plan to “beautify” Washington, D.C., which includes razing the East Wing of the White House to build a 1,000-person ballroom and renovating Lafayette Park across the street. The administration has also announced plans to repaint the Reflecting Pool at the Lincoln Memorial, further signaling a shift in the capital’s aesthetic priorities. But for critics, the EEOB paint job represents more than a cosmetic change—it’s a potential threat to the integrity of a building that has stood for over a century as a symbol of American governance and history.

As the NCPC and other agencies weigh the proposal, the debate over the EEOB’s future underscores the tension between political vision and architectural preservation in the nation’s capital.