Have there been any notable exemptions or exceptions granted to the White House under the National Historic Preservation Act?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Section 107 (often referenced as the NHPA exemption) explicitly removes the White House, the U.S. Capitol and the U.S. Supreme Court Building from the formal Section 106 historic‑review procedures established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) — a statutory carve‑out that has been repeatedly cited in reporting about the recent East Wing demolition . That exemption is real and longstanding, but past presidents and preservation bodies have usually treated White House projects as if they were subject to NHPA’s consultative practices even when not legally compelled to do so, and preservation groups are now litigating and lobbying to restore review for the current project .
1. The explicit statutory exception: Section 107 and what it does
The NHPA’s core procedural requirement, Section 106, obliges federal agencies to identify and assess effects of projects on historic properties and to provide opportunities for public comment; Section 107, however, explicitly exempts three Washington landmarks — the White House, the Capitol and the Supreme Court — from that Section 106 review, meaning the statute does not legally force those institutions into the NHPA’s formal consultation process . Multiple mainstream outlets and legal summaries confirm that exemption in the NHPA text and in practice reporting surrounding the 2025 East Wing demolition .
2. How the exemption has functioned in practice — routine compliance by choice, not by law
Historically, administrations have largely followed NHPA‑style reviews and sought advice from 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 — even though the NHPA does not compel them to do so; preservation experts call that customary oversight “best practice,” not a legal obligation . Reporting and statements from preservation organizations emphasize that previous projects frequently went through voluntary review, creating an expectation of transparency and consultation that critics say the current administration has sidestepped .
3. The political and legal fallout from treating the White House as exempt
The statutory exemption has become a flashpoint because the East Wing teardown proceeded without the formal public Section 106 process, prompting letters from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and lawsuits alleging violations of other federal laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act where standing and remedies are being tested in court . Preservationists argue the exemption creates a “loophole” that can be exploited to avoid public review on projects with national symbolic impact, while defenders point to other oversight mechanisms — including NCPC review authorities and executive‑branch controls — as existing checks .
4. Limits of the exemption and other legal authorities that can apply
The NHPA exemption does not mean the White House is lawless: other statutes and agencies can impose constraints or trigger reviews — for example, the National Capital Planning Act and NCPC oversight, Executive Order requirements, and property‑management statutes administered by the National Park Service and related advisory bodies have historically played a role in White House projects . Still, those authorities are distinct from Section 106’s explicit consultative process, and experts warn that reliance on discretionary or internal review offers far less predictable public accountability than the NHPA framework provided .
5. Bottom line: notable exemption yes — but contested in practice
In plain terms, there has indeed been a notable and explicit statutory exemption: the White House (with the Capitol and the Supreme Court) is exempt from Section 106 of the NHPA, a fact affirmed across government and news reporting of the 2025 controversy [1]. Yet that legal exception has not erased expectations of review built up over decades, and preservation groups have moved to litigate and press other statutory avenues to compel oversight, making the exemption a legal reality that remains politically and procedurally contested .