ACECO LLC Lawsuit Over the White House East Wing Demolition

No lawsuit has been filed against ACECO LLC over its work demolishing the White House East Wing, but the Silver Spring, Maryland demolition contractor sits at the center of two active federal cases and a Senate inquiry tied to that October 2025 project. One suit, brought by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, seeks federal records about how asbestos and other hazards were handled. A second, brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, challenges the ballroom project ACECO’s demolition made way for. Both were still pending in mid-2026.

Who ACECO Is

ACECO was founded in 1936 and describes itself as the most experienced demolition-services company in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.¹ It handles demolition, excavation, and environmental remediation, with past jobs including work on D.C. Metro platforms and a CSX tunnel in Virginia.² Michael D. Citren is chairman and co-owner; Stephen D. Smith became president on January 1, 2021.³

The Trump administration hired ACECO to demolish the East Wing annex, a structure originally built in 1902 and expanded in 1942, to clear the site for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom. Work began around October 20, 2025, and was largely completed above grade by early December.⁴ In the days after demolition began, ACECO shut down its company website and Instagram page, and Yelp temporarily disabled user reviews after an influx of posts unrelated to actual customer experience.⁵

The FOIA Lawsuit Over Asbestos and Safety Records

On January 7, 2026, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force the release of federal records about the demolition. The case, Asbestos Disease Awareness Association v. National Park Service (No. 1:26-cv-00029), was assigned to Judge Richard J. Leon.⁶

The defendants are the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Labor (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Executive Office of the President. ADAO says it sent Freedom of Information Act requests to nine federal offices in November 2025 seeking records on how hazardous materials were identified and abated, and that the agencies missed the statutory 20-day response deadline.⁷ The complaint asks the court to declare the withholding unlawful, order the records produced, and require the government to justify any exemptions it claims.⁶

ADAO filed a motion for partial summary judgment in February 2026 asking the court to set processing deadlines. The government moved to stay that request, and Judge Leon granted the stay. The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss in March. Later that month, Leon lifted the stay and set a briefing schedule. The case remained pending in mid-2026 with no ruling on document production or on the motion to dismiss.⁸

ACECO is not a defendant. The suit targets federal agencies for records, but the records at issue concern the work ACECO performed.

What Is Driving the Asbestos Questions

The East Wing’s age made it, in the words of public-health advocates, “overwhelmingly likely” to contain asbestos in insulation, flooring, and pipe wrap.⁹ The White House itself had identified asbestos in floor tiles, glue, pipe gaskets, and insulation during earlier renovations for which it obtained D.C. abatement permits.¹⁰ Airborne asbestos fibers can cause lung cancer, asbestosis, and mesothelioma.

Several concerns fueled the litigation and congressional scrutiny:

The administration did not obtain a D.C. asbestos-abatement permit. The D.C. Department of Buildings said it lacks jurisdiction over federal property and “blocklisted” the White House address to avoid further requests.¹⁰
No public documentation was released confirming an asbestos survey, an abatement plan, or federally compliant disposal.¹⁰
Photographs, videos, and witness accounts suggested the demolition proceeded without containment, dust suppression, or adequate personal protective equipment.⁹
ACECO’s D.C. asbestos-abatement license had been voluntarily canceled by the company on August 18, 2022. The D.C. Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection confirmed the cancellation was voluntary rather than a revocation.¹¹¹²

A White House spokesperson said “any hazardous material abatement was done in September” 2025 and that “a very extensive abatement and remediation assessment was followed, complying with all applicable federal standards.” The administration did not confirm whether asbestos had been found or removed and released no supporting documentation. Citren, asked about asbestos handling by Senator Ed Markey, declined to provide details, saying “our contract requires all information regarding this project to be held in the strictest confidence.”¹⁰

Senator Markey’s Inquiry Directed at ACECO

On October 30, 2025, Senator Edward J. Markey sent Citren and Smith a formal letter demanding answers about ACECO’s handling of the demolition. The letter cited the OSHA Asbestos Standard for construction (29 C.F.R. § 1926.1101), which requires employers to identify, monitor, and control asbestos exposure, and the EPA’s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, or NESHAP (40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart M), which requires inspection, advance EPA notice, and approved abatement procedures before demolishing structures that contain asbestos.¹³

Markey posed ten questions covering the scope of ACECO’s contract, whether a hazardous-materials survey was conducted, whether NESHAP notifications were filed with EPA Region III, what permits were obtained, what worker training and protective equipment were provided, whether air monitoring or sampling was performed, and how debris was disposed of. He set a November 12, 2025, deadline for written responses.⁹ No public record of a response from ACECO has surfaced.¹³

Senator Richard Blumenthal sent letters on October 29, 2025, to Clark Construction and AECOM, the ballroom’s builder and engineer, demanding they preserve documents and answer questions about bidding, contract terms, cost estimates, non-disclosure agreements, and any Trump Organization work.¹⁴

The National Trust Lawsuit Over the Ballroom Itself

In December 2025, the National Trust for Historic Preservation sued in National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Donald J. Trump, et al. (No. 1:25-cv-04316), challenging the ballroom project on separation-of-powers grounds under the Property, Appropriations, and District Clauses.¹⁵ The Trust sought a temporary restraining order.

On December 16, 2025, Judge Leon denied the restraining order. He found that continuing below-ground work for a few weeks was “unlikely to produce irreparable harm,” noting the relevant laws were “principally focused” on above-ground aesthetics. Leon accepted a classified filing on national security implications of stopping work, ordered the administration to submit ballroom plans to the National Capital Planning Commission by the end of December, and warned officials to be “prepared to reverse the below-ground steps” if the project later exceeded permitted limits.¹⁶

On March 31, 2026, Leon reversed course and ruled the administration could not proceed with above-ground ballroom work without explicit congressional approval. The administration appealed. On April 11, 2026, a D.C. Circuit panel voted 2-1 to stay Leon’s injunction and let construction continue during the appeal.¹⁷¹⁸¹⁹

ACECO is not a party to the National Trust case either. The demolition it performed was already complete when the litigation moved into its most active phase.

The False Claim That ACECO Sued the Trump Administration

A viral post claimed ACECO had filed legal action against the Trump administration over unpaid invoices. That claim is false. It originated with USAmidia, a site categorized as a source of sensationalist and often fabricated news. The story conflated the Silver Spring, Maryland ACECO with an unrelated engineering company of the same name based in the United Arab Emirates, and included a fabricated quote attributed to an ACECO spokesperson. There is no credible evidence of any payment dispute between the Maryland ACECO and the administration over the East Wing project.²⁰

1
ACECO. ACECO World
2
The Banner. ACECO Donald Trump White House East Wing Demolition Ballroom
3
WBC Net. ACECO Announces New President
4
Engineering News-Record. Court Filings Push White House Ballroom Project Into New Phase
5
WTOP. Demolition Company at White House Gets Taken Apart Over Taking the East Wing Job
6
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Asbestos Disease Awareness Association v. National Park Service
7
The Washington Post. ADAO v. National Park Service Complaint
8
CourtListener. Asbestos Disease Awareness Association v. National Park Service Docket
9
U.S. Senator Edward Markey. Letter to ACECO on East Wing Demolition
10
E&E News. White House Dodged East Wing Asbestos Permits
11
Engineering News-Record. Contractor Compliance Risk Mounts for Firms in White House East Wing Demolition
12
InvestorsHub. ACECO License Discussion
13
U.S. Senator Edward Markey. Senator Markey Grills White House Contractor ACECO on Health and Safety Precautions During East Wing Demolition
14
U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal. Blumenthal Questions White House Ballroom Contractors on Participation in Construction Project
15
The U.S. Constitution. National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service
16
Politico. White House Ballroom Construction Ruling
17
NPR. DC Appeals Court Trump Ballroom Bunker
18
CNN. White House Ballroom Appeals Court Hearing
19
National Trust for Historic Preservation. Statement Court of Appeals National Trust v. NPS
20
Yahoo News. Fact Check Dont Buy Claim