If the threat to the Cohen Building strikes a familiar note, perhaps that’s because I’ve written about it previously (here, here, and here). Alternatively, you may have read about it in The New York Times or The Washington Post. (I’m not too fine a person to observe that only the Post credited The New Republic with breaking this story.) Or maybe you heard about it from the million-member lobby group Social Security Works, which has taken on this cause because the Cohen building was built in 1940 to house the (then-spanking-new) Social Security program. Earlier this month, Democratic senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Chuck Schumer of New York wrote the GSA’s acting inspector general inquiring “how GSA plans to continue oversight” of the Cohen building murals “once ownership changes hands entirely to private interests.”
The General Services Administration, the executive-branch agency in charge of most federal real estate, lists 47 government buildings around the country for “accelerated disposition.” The Trump White House has been especially keen to unload four of these, all located in Southwest Washington: The Cohen building, the GSA Regional Office Building, the Liberty Loan Building, and the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building. On Wednesday the GSA announced that it had sold the GSA Regional Office Building; in addition The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Business Journal reported that the Liberty Loan Building was under contract to be sold.
In announcing sale of the GSA Regional Office Building, GSA administrator Edward C. Forst crowed it would save taxpayers “over $200 million in delinquent maintenance and $5.5 million in annual operating and maintenance costs.” Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa said in a press release that the sale “will save taxpayers over $700 million.” But neither Forst nor Ernst mentioned how much John Q. Taxpayer got for this 940,000 square-foot structure sprawling over 3.4 acres adjacent to a subway stop. There was a reason for that omission.
Why would the government sell one federal building (much less four) into such a terrible real estate market? Didn’t I read somewhere that our president used to be in the real estate business? Alas, the MAGA faith preaches that government buildings (and indeed all government assets) are all cost and no value. That works out very nicely for the buyer and very poorly for the taxpayer. We don’t yet know the sale price on the Liberty Loan Building, but I’m guessing it was similarly low.
On the other hand: Nothing in the amendment said the building can’t be sold before it’s vacated (though that, I’m told, would play havoc with normal GSA procedures). The main obstacle to quick action, a former GSA staffer told me, is that the Cohen probably hasn’t yet gone through the consultation process with preservationists required before any sale under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. “I can’t say 100 percent that they haven’t done 106,” this person said, “but I can say that if they did it” without including the Living New Deal, which GSA previously certified to participate, “it would be incredibly shady and unprecedented.”
This was my third time visiting the murals in the Cohen building, and, I was pleased to learn, Doggett’s second; he knew about the Shahns well before I did. Doggett showed me language he’d drafted for the next GSA appropriation: “None of the funds provided by this Act shall be available for the sale, leasing, or destruction of the Wilbur J. Cohen Building without guaranteeing the preservation of all artwork contained in the structure of the building.” When I asked Doggett whether he’d consider submitting an amendment flat-out barring the Cohen building’s sale, he said yes. If Congress can tell GSA which buildings to sell, then surely it can tell GSA which buildings not to sell.
Doggett’s in the minority, of course, so his influence (also that of Whitehouse and Schumer on the Senate side) is limited. But Doggett said he was seeking out Republican support. Given that “conservatism” means “to conserve,” I’d hope there’d be some interest. Alternatively, if conservatism is about protecting taxpayers from getting ripped off, there ought to be five or six Republicans who’d oppose selling a 1,045,197 square-foot Mall-facing building situated two blocks west of the Capital into the sort of depressed real estate market where government buildings fetch less than one-tenth their actual value. Plus this one has the best New Deal art in Washington, D.C.
Hence then, the article about the fight to save d c s new deal sistine chapel from trump was published today ( ) and is available on The New Republic ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( The Fight to Save D.C.’s New Deal Sistine Chapel From Trump )
Also on site :
- Skip Ballet Flats, Jane Fonda Proved This Elevated Shoe Will Take Over Spring 2026
- Montana Senate candidate says he will introduce bill to draft Graham if elected
- Exclusive: Anthropic acknowledges testing new AI model representing ‘step change’ in capabilities, after accidental data leak reveals its existence