From People:
Preservationists are taking their fight against Donald Trump’s proposed makeover of one of Washington, D.C.’s most recognizable buildings back to court.
Groups challenging Trump’s plan to paint the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) plan to file a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction on Thursday, July 30. They are asking a federal court to halt paint testing that could begin as early as Aug. 3 while the legality of the project is resolved, Cultural Heritage Partners said in a statement shared exclusively with PEOPLE ahead of the filing.
Cultural Heritage Partners said the planned motion comes after the White House announced its intention to begin a paint feasibility study on portions of the landmark. The group also said the administration had previously assured the court that no such work would move forward before complying with federal historic preservation and environmental laws.
The motion argues that the proposed testing goes beyond determining whether paint could be applied to the building and is instead a step toward carrying out the broader project. They allege the project was improperly transferred from the General Services Administration to the White House Office of Administration in an effort to “bypass the public review process” required under federal preservation and environmental laws, according to Cultural Heritage Partners.
Previous reports indicated Mr. Trump wanted the EEOB painted white. Here’s my AI generated depiction (first shown here).
Source: ChatGPT.
We can only hope the same contractor that “fixed” the Reflecting Pool is not tapped for this paint job.
Off topic – If one pokes “mid-term election stock market” into a search engine, one finds that mid-term election years are, on average, bad for stocks. Most of you probably know that already. Here are a handful of stylized facts about mid-term-year stock market performance, with “stylized” meaning don’t count on all of them being true every time:
Returns in the 12 months up to mid-term elections tend to be positive, but weakly positive relative to other periods.
The worst performance tends to be in the summer months (August in particular), with a rebound in prices commencing prior to the election. The conventional explanation for this timing is that election outcomes become obvious prior to elections most of the time. If the outcome of this year’s competitive Senate races remains unclear, then the rebound may be delayed.
The 12 months after mid-term elections tend to be among the best periods for stock performance. Uncertainty declines, and so do risk premia. If uncertainty remains high after the election, we might not expect stocks to perform up to snuff.
More thorough analysis also mentions that the economy and interest rates matter to equity market performance, regardless of the election cycle. We have some economic and interest-rate issues this year.
Off topic – with Lindsey gone, the war-monger faction in Congress seems weakened. Here’s evidence:
“President Trump seemingly has no good options to end the unpopular and expensive Iran war.
Still, one idea is gaining traction on Capitol Hill and in national security circles: Simply declare victory and stop fighting.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jul/29/mission-accomplished-simply-declaring-victory-could-trumps-best/
This sort of thing ends up in the press because politicians want it in the press. Getting out of the quagmire is an increasingly high priority as November elections (which commence in October) draw near.
Congressman Pat Harrigan (R, N.C.) actually invoked the U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon after the 1983 barracks bombing as a model for ending the war with Iran – not sure that’s helpful to bring up, even though it’s apt.
Brent has opened 4 1/2% lower on the war-criminal-in-chief’s announcent that we won’t be bombing Iran for a while.
Maybe, just maybe, this stupid war is nearing an end.
It should be noted that both hard liners in Iran and China want this war to continue. Its continuation will help cement the power of hardliners and weaken the power of US. Trump would have to swallow some serious humiliation, with Iran doing all they can to enhance rather than hide that humiliation. The best time to declare victory and run away was after the first 3 weeks – now it will be a lot harder (for Trumps ego).
Iran has incentives to keep the war burning until after our midterm elections. That is their most effective way to inflict damage on trump. I dont think trump can willingly avoid their goading for three more months.
scienceinsights.org/which-wind-farms-are-economically-successful/
Trump is on the air telling one lie after another as well as saying some of the dumbest things ever. OK – what’s new. One of his lies is that ALL wind companies lose money. Now I don’t have a substantial research paper but neither does the LIAR in CHIEF. But may if this moron read this link he might realize how idiotic his claim really was.
“Offshore wind farms cost significantly more to build than onshore projects, but they access stronger, more consistent winds. The economics have been volatile in recent years. Several high-profile U.S. offshore projects were cancelled or renegotiated in 2023 and 2024 as rising interest rates and supply chain costs eroded the financial assumptions developers had locked in years earlier.”
This gets at the up-front capital cost vs operating cost issue. At lower capital costs, including low borrowing costs, the choice to go after strong, steady off-shore winds makes sense. When capital costs are high, choices are harder.
Ivan recently linked to a Lazard study which made the same point about interest rates and capital costs:
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2026/07/policy-uncertainty-spikes-around-new-section-301-tariffs#comment-323314
Tatiffs and war against Iran have driven up equipment costs and interest rates, which end up reducing energy investmentand security. Higher petroleum costs, on the other hand, make the lower cost of renewable energy even more attractive. Add in elevated uncertainty of future capital and energy and borrowing costs, and on balance, this seems a bad environment for investment in generating capacity of all kinds, not to mention capital projects in general.
When the main cost is capital you have the advantage of inflation protection. When you build a solar project on a 30-year bond you have a set monthly payment that doesn’t go up much at all. If the main cost is natural gas fuel, labor, repairs and replacement (of costly turbine blades) – the cost of those will go up on a regular basis through the 30-year lifetime of a combined cycle plant.
Painting that building white will be ugly but it will also turn it into a maintenance nightmare. Trump is an idiot.