Historic Preservation

Noem Accused of Falsely Citing Emergency to Demolish Historic Buildings

Secretary Kristi Noem is facing accusations of fabricating an emergency to justify demolishing 17 historic buildings on the St. Elizabeths Campus West, a designated National Historic Landmark being transformed into DHS headquarters. DHS claims the vacant buildings pose a security risk, potentially offering “tactical advantage” to a “malicious insider.” Preservationists, however, strongly object, arguing that the alleged security concerns stem from failures to secure the site and not the buildings themselves. They assert the emergency declaration bypasses proper procedures, with many buildings still lacking the necessary reviews.

Read More

Preservationists Sue Over Trump’s White House Ballroom Project

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has filed a lawsuit to halt President Trump’s White House ballroom project, citing violations of federal regulations. The lawsuit argues that the project, which involves demolition of the East Wing, requires comprehensive design reviews, environmental assessments, public comment, and congressional approval before proceeding. The Trust claims Trump bypassed standard government procedures and seeks a court order to stop further construction until proper reviews are completed, as the project has ignored the established process for federal building projects on historic grounds. The lawsuit also names several federal agencies and their leaders as defendants, underscoring the legal challenges to Trump’s plans.

Read More

Trump Sued Over White House East Wing Demolition

A Virginia couple has filed a federal lawsuit to halt the demolition of the White House’s East Wing, part of a $300 million project to build a new ballroom. The suit alleges that the Trump administration bypassed necessary legal procedures for historic preservation and public transparency. The White House maintains that the president has the authority to renovate and modernize the building, comparing the project to past expansions. The outcome of the lawsuit will determine whether a president can unilaterally alter a national landmark, potentially setting a precedent for the balance of presidential power and public oversight of historic sites.

Read More