The White House, the Capitol, and the US Supreme Court Building are exempted from listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, is not applied to the White House, so review of undertakings for the effect of projects is not allowed. That is not to say that there is no internal review of projects, and numerous White Houses have been extremely forceful in pursuing responsible custodianship of the historic structure. Notable among the players was Jackie Kennedy who did a great deal of work in preserving the White House, bringing back furnishings, and putting it forward as a historic treasure. And it was thanks to her persistence during the beginning of the Johnson administration that the National Historic Preservation Act was passed, giving us a national preservation program. The omission of the key DC structures from normal preservation review is usually tied to security concerns, but it is an omission that is not lost on preservationists.

Preservationists are more concerned with the preservation of the structure than they are with the uses within it. Furniture changes and use changes, but as long as the walls, windows, and other structural features remain, preservationist are generally satisfied. Obviously, the historic nature of the White House - and the wonderful work of the JFK administration - raises the bar, and modifications that would diminish the presentation of key rooms in the structure would result in a public outcry.

Edit to provide context: I administered a State Historic Preservation Office for thirty years, retiring in 2012. In 2004, I joined the National Historic Landmarks Committee, which participates in the process of listing (and delisting) of landmarks for the National Park Service. In 2009 I joined the Advisory Board for the National Park System and became the chair of the National Historic Landmarks Committee, stepping down at the end of last year. I'm familiar with these issues.