Susan Eisenhower has urged officials not to rush the controversial White House-adjacent makeover
Donald Trump is once again making efforts to put his own stamp on Washington DC, and his latest plan has already sparked a wave of criticism.
Since returning to the White House, The POTUS has been linked to a string of changes around the US capital, from major work on the White House grounds to wider plans intended to make the city look more impressive — or even altering certain American passports.
Supporters have framed the projects as part of an effort to restore pride and beauty to America’s most famous political landmarks, yet not everyone is convinced.
In reality, this latest proposed makeover has gone down particularly badly with preservationists, architects, and historians, who say it could cause permanent damage to a building that has stood for well over a century.
The historic landmark in question is the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which sits right next to the White House, and Trump wants to paint the 19th-century building white.
At the moment, though the building is known for its grey granite exterior, Trump has previously made it very clear that he is not exactly a fan of the colour, calling it a ‘really bad color’, as reported by outlets like AP News.
As noted by The Washington Post, he also said: “Gray is for funerals,” adding: “Look at it, how beautiful that is with a coat of paint.”
The building opened in 1888 after 17 years of construction and is a National Historic Landmark, as well as being listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
As per the White House, the proposed paint job could cost taxpayers at least $7.5 million. That figure is only for the exterior work, meaning it does not include future maintenance costs.
Officials have reportedly put forward two options for the makeover. One would see the entire granite exterior painted white, while the other would paint most of the building but leave the granite base untouched.
The full white version is believed to be the preferred option.
Nevertheless, experts have warned that painting granite is not as simple as giving a wall a fresh coat before guests come over.
Those against the plan argue that paint could trap moisture, damage the stone, and permanently alter the historic landmark.
Priya Jain, of the Society of Architectural Historians, said: “Painting the granite facade of the building white will adversely and permanently alter this important landmark, and should be rejected.”
The National Capital Planning Commission has not approved the proposal. Instead, it has asked the White House to provide more information about the paint, testing, removal, long-term maintenance, and possible alternatives.
Ryan Erb, the construction operations and facilities manager in the White House Office of Administration, said testing is still ongoing.
He told commissioners: “Unfortunately, we can’t rush that process,” adding: “We’re trying to get all the data first.”
Susan Eisenhower, the granddaughter of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, has also urged caution.
In an essay, she wrote: “There is no need to rush to paint it.”
She added: “The building positively sparkles.”
A White House spokesperson defended Trump’s wider plans, saying: “President Trump continues to beautify the White House and our Nation’s Capital and is giving it the glory it deserves — something everyone should celebrate.”
