FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Posted January 30, 2026
STATEMENT ON THE JEFF MERKLEY AND SUZANNE BONAMICI LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP
In a formal letter addressed directly to President Donald J. Trump, Sen. Jeff Merkley and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici requested written responses and supporting documentation regarding health, safety, and environmental compliance procedures for the October 2025 demolition of the White House East Wing. The correspondence focuses on asbestos and other airborne hazards, applicable federal and local permitting requirements, and the federal government’s responsibility to provide transparent, verifiable information when demolition activity may disturb carcinogenic materials.
Central Issues Raised
The letter expresses concern that the demolition of a historically significant structure may have posed risks of asbestos, lead, and silica exposure. The lawmakers emphasize that asbestos was widely used in building materials throughout the early and mid-20th century and that medical consensus holds that there is no safe level of exposure. They also note the long latency period of asbestos-related diseases and the ability of airborne particulates to travel beyond a demolition site under outdoor conditions.
Rather than characterizing the matter as solely procedural, the correspondence frames the issue as one of worker protection and public safety, including potential exposure risks to nearby employees, visitors, and pedestrians.
Regulatory Context Referenced
The letter situates its requests within existing regulatory frameworks that govern demolition and hazardous-material abatement, including:
- Federal worker-protection and environmental standards administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration;
- District of Columbia permitting and abatement requirements for structures built before 2000, including asbestos surveys and proof of abatement; and
- Interagency coordination practices typically involve the General Services Administration and municipal building authorities.
By outlining these layers of regulation, the lawmakers indicate that compliance requires documented inspections, certifications, waste-handling plans, and safety protocols.
Transparency, Documentation, and Civil-Society Action
A central theme of the letter is the need for documentary verification of public assurances that hazardous-material abatement was completed prior to demolition. This concern parallels the early actions of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), which began raising questions in October 2025, immediately after the demolition.
Beginning that month, ADAO issued public statements, transmitted formal letters to federal offices requesting asbestos-related documentation, and filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking inspection records, abatement certifications, and waste-disposal plans. When responses were limited or non-project-specific, those efforts escalated to formal legal action to obtain records through the courts. Our path to transparency and safety begins with our initial letters and FOIAs, through ongoing litigation, reflecting a sustained effort to establish a transparent evidentiary record on hazardous-material management and public-health safeguards.
Categories of Information Requested
The letter asks the President to provide written responses and produce records by a specified deadline. Key requests include:
- Pre-Demolition Inspections and Testing
Documentation of asbestos, lead, and silica surveys or testing conducted before the October 2025 demolition. - Abatement Plans and Certifications
Notifications, permits, and certifications submitted to or required by the District of Columbia and federal authorities demonstrating regulatory compliance. - Worker and Public-Protection Measures
Evidence of personal protective equipment requirements, air-monitoring data, waste-disposal plans, warning signage, and site-specific safety protocols. - Agency and Contractor Correspondence
Written communications among federal agencies, planning bodies, architects, construction firms, and environmental-compliance consultants regarding environmental-hazard identification and remediation for the East Wing project.
Broader Implications
Letters of this nature function as formal requests for executive-branch clarification rather than legislative proceedings. By seeking inspection records, abatement documentation, and interagency correspondence, while civil society organizations pursue parallel transparency actions, Sen. Merkley and Rep. Bonamici aim to establish a clear factual record of whether established health-and-safety protocols were followed and whether public statements are supported by contemporaneous evidence. The inquiry underscores a broader principle of environmental governance: assurances of safety carry weight only when accompanied by timely, project-specific, and publicly accessible documentation.
“On behalf of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), we applaud Sen. Jeff Merkley and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici for their unwavering leadership to protect Americans from deadly asbestos. Their letter to President Trump calls for transparency and accountability at a moment when the public is still seeking clear answers about the demolition of the original White House movie theater and the safety protocols that should have governed the East Wing project. As longstanding champions of the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now (ARBAN) Act, they continue to stand on the front lines of asbestos prevention and policy, demonstrating that evidence-based oversight and public-health protection must remain nonpartisan national priorities.
While public attention has shifted to new construction, many Americans are still waiting for documentation confirming that proper safeguards were followed during the East Wing demolition. ADAO has pursued, and will continue to pursue, access to public-safety records through formal letters, Freedom of Information Act requests, and ongoing legal action, because transparency is essential to ensure that all required health precautions were taken. The public deserves timely, verifiable answers whenever potential cancer-causing hazards are involved.”
Linda Reinstein
