, the General Services Administration and the National Park Service in November for violating federal laws that require work on a historically significant building to be undertaken only after public notice and in consultation with stakeholders.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIn the Q&A they prepared, the plaintiffs say President Trump has asserted there exists a \u201c\u2018magic paint with silicate\u2019\u201d that, if applied to the exterior granite of the building, would strengthen the stone, keep water out, prevent staining, be easy to apply and rarely require repainting. None of those claims is true, according to the specialists.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThey say mineral silicate paints are inappropriate for granite because granite doesn\u2019t contain calcium carbonate. \u201cMineral silicate paints are designed to chemically bond with stone that contains calcium carbonate, such as limestone, sandstone, or marble.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nOther points they raise:\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n- Making the paint work would require the use of a primer or other acrylic bonding agent, which would undermine the advantage of the paint. \u201cThe barrier layer of a primer [would block] chemical bonding between paint and stone,\u201d they said.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
- The granite would need to be sanded, which would permanently alter the surface. \u201cBecause granite is relatively smooth and non-absorbent, every surface of the \u2026 granite would need to be sanded, scarified, etched, or otherwise abraded,\u201d they said.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
- The paint wouldn\u2019t protect the granite from deterioration. \u201cAt best, it acts only as a surface coating,\u201d they said. It \u201cdoes not repair internal flaws, prevent cracking, or enhance the inherent durability of granite.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
- It wouldn\u2019t stop water penetration. \u201cWater infiltration is driven by failings at joints, sealants, flashing, and mortar, and building movement \u2014 not by the exposed face of granite blocks,\u201d they said.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
- Discoloration would continue to be a problem. \u201cLeaching and iron staining can pass through breathable coatings\u201d like silicate paint, they said. If the granite is painted white, as planned, staining would become even more noticeable, they said.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
- Removing the paint in the future would be an expensive job, and it wouldn\u2019t be possible without damaging the granite. \u201cIt would require mechanical or chemical methods that further damage the stone,\u201d leaving a \u201chazy, filmy\u201d residue, they said.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
President Trump late last year said the gray building facade was deteriorating and didn\u2019t pair well with the White House stylistically. \u201cGray is for funerals,\u201d he said <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>while talking with<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Fox program host Laura Ingraham. He disclosed on that program that he had begun work to have the building repainted and repairs made.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe plaintiffs\u2019 complaint says the plans violate the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. They said they also violate Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution, known as the Take Care clause, because it requires the president to \u201ctake care\u201d that the laws of the United States be faithfully executed.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe president and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit at the end of January. In <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>their response<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> to the motion, the plaintiffs reasserted their complaint that the project is unlawful.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\u201cCongress [made] a deliberate choice to require early and meaningful consideration of environmental and historical impacts by federal agencies, precisely so that those considerations can inform decisionmaking before commitments are locked in and irreversible harm occurs,\u201d the plaintiffs said.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe president is also facing lawsuits against his plans to <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>build a ballroom<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> on the White House grounds and to <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>renovate the Kennedy Center<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> for the Performing Arts. A nonprofit group is <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>also reportedly preparing<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> a lawsuit against the president if he goes forward with a <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>