Trump finally secures small victory in one of his DC beautification projects

Trump finally secures small victory in one of his DC beautification projects Planners indicated that the painting project would cost at least $7.5 million - Bookmark A federal district judge ruled on Tuesday that paint tests on a 19th-century historic landmark adjacent to the White House can proceed, temporarily advancing President Donald Trump's plans to add a fresh coat of white paint to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Trump has proposed painting the massive structure as part of his campaign to overhaul and beautify the nation’s capital. Planners indicated that the painting project would cost at least $7.5 million. The scheme to paint the building has alarmed preservationists, architects, historians, and others who argue that granite is not meant to be painted and that paint will trap moisture and degrade the stone. U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich ruled that plaintiffs in the ongoing litigation had failed to show that the minimal testing scheduled for the historic landmark would cause irreparable harm if permitted. The plaintiffs, which include cultural preservation groups, had sought a restraining order and temporary injunction to stop the Trump administration from conducting tests and other initial preparatory work. 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 testing areas will cover roughly 8 square feet of the building's massive exterior along with several panels not visible at all to the public, she noted. Friedrich explained that while she is permitting the trial testing to proceed, she will not hesitate to intervene and issue a ruling should the administration move past limited testing. She directed both parties to file a status report by next Tuesday, followed by regular status updates thereafter. Gregory Werkheiser, an attorney with Cultural Heritage Partners and a lawyer for the plaintiffs, noted that while challengers of the painting initiative were disappointed, "the reasons we brought this case are untouched by today’s decision." The main issue, Werkheiser explained, remains 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."