How does the National Historic Preservation Act apply to White House renovations or expansions?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to assess effects of federally funded or permitted projects on historic properties through a Section 106 review, but Congress expressly exempted the White House (along with the U.S. Capitol and Supreme Court) from that process in Section 107 of the law [1][2]. In practice many administrations have voluntarily submitted White House changes to advisory review bodies as a best practice, but that custom is not a statutory requirement and recent renovations have triggered lawsuits and new legislation proposals to change that legal gap [3][4].
1. Legal framework: Section 106 obligation and the White House carve-out
Section 106 of the NHPA obliges federal agencies to identify and consider impacts of their undertakings on historic properties through consultation and public input, but Section 107 of the NHPA explicitly exempts three buildings — the White House, the U.S. Capitol and the Supreme Court — from that Section 106 review, meaning the statute’s mandatory review process does not apply to the White House as written [1][2].
2. Customary practice versus statutory duty: presidents’ voluntary reviews
Although the White House is statutorily exempt, multiple preservation experts and organizations note that presidents historically have treated the review process as “best practice,” often engaging advisory bodies such as the Committee for the Preservation of the White House, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Commission of Fine Arts to secure independent review and public input despite the exemption [3][5].
3. The current flashpoint: demolition, ballroom construction, and litigation
The Trump administration’s demolition of the East Wing and construction of a large ballroom has heightened attention on the exemption because critics say formal consultation and pre-construction submissions to NCPC and the Commission of Fine Arts were bypassed, prompting the National Trust for Historic Preservation to sue to halt construction and request a temporary restraining order while reviews and congressional authorization are sought [6][7][1].
4. Administration response and claims of authority
The administration has defended the project by asserting the president’s legal authority to modernize the White House and by saying necessary consultations “will soon be underway,” even filing court briefs arguing national security and procedural grounds to continue work, while critics counter that customary independent reviews and statutory safeguards were circumvented [8][7].
5. Oversight gaps, practical controls, and legislative fixes under consideration
Practical oversight is complicated: the NCPC has jurisdiction over construction and renovations but — according to officials — historically does not require permits for demolition, and the statutory NHPA exemption means the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s formal Section 106 role doesn’t automatically trigger for the White House; in response lawmakers like Rep. Jamie Raskin have introduced bills to remove the White House’s exemption and force Section 106-style public review and agency consultations for future renovations [5][4][9].
6. What courts, Congress and preservation bodies can actually do now
Courts can entertain lawsuits alleging violations of other federal statutes (for example the National Environmental Policy Act or the National Capital Planning Act) and can issue injunctions in narrow circumstances, but the fundamental statutory exemption remains unless Congress amends the NHPA; preservation groups are therefore pursuing both litigation and a political route—urging legal injunctions while lobbying for legislative change to require Section 106 review for the White House going forward [6][10][4].
Conclusion
Legally, the NHPA’s Section 106 review does not apply to the White House because Congress carved the building out of the statute in Section 107, but longstanding norms of voluntary review by advisory bodies have usually filled that gap; the recent ballroom demolition and construction have exposed the limits of those norms, producing lawsuits and legislative proposals that, if enacted, would fold the White House back into the NHPA’s formal review process [1][3][4].