The Trump Arch construction controversy is the latest vanity project by Donald Trump using taxpayer money without Congressional approval, placing his ego-based physical stamp on not only American historical architecture but also the American psyche. With no good reason for constructing this arch, it’s an act of self-aggrandizement meant to make him look powerful and important. The project is unconstitutional, illegal, and patently un-American. Three Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian have also filed a lawsuit against it.
Like all other actors in government, executive agencies, like the National Park Service, must follow the rule of law and respect ‘separation of powers’ established by the U.S. Constitution. This means following the laws enacted by Congress, which has the power to distribute public funds and determine how they are spent, not the Executive Branch, including the President.
As noted in the complaint filed against the administration, the administration must follow required processes for architectural, public enjoyment, environmental, and safety reasons. As it stands, it could pose a hazard to air travel at nearby Reagan National Airport and to motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians who use the area for recreation, commuting, and other local travel.
Proceeding with construction of the Arch may misappropriate public funds, a federal crime and a breach of public trust. Depending on the amount misappropriated, it can lead to decades in prison, financial penalties, and asset forfeiture. 18 U.S. Code § 641 prohibits the embezzlement, theft, or knowing conversion of any money or things of value belonging to the United States. 18 U.S. Code § 653 specifically targets disbursing officers who misuse, loan, or apply public funds without proper legal authorization.
Months ago, Trump and the executive branch were forewarned by members of Congress in a letter sent to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and two National Park Service officials that building the proposed arch in the nation’s capital would “violate multiple statutes and that the NPS has ‘no power’ to build it.” Senator Angus King (Maine-I) and Representative Jared Huffman (California-D), who signed the letter, noted, “[a]ppropriated funds may be applied only to the objects for which Congress appropriated them,” and then warned that officials who use unauthorized funds could be subject to “suspension without pay, removal from office and, for knowing and willful violations, criminal fines and imprisonment.”
There is also the question of whether President Trump can build a monument in his honor while still alive. The Commemorative Works Act states that monuments honoring famous Americans can be built only after the 25th anniversary of their passing. Otherwise, it would be as if Trump is a king, which he is not. This time allows a period to determine whether an administration's accomplishments are worthy of such honors, for example, the historic accomplishments honored through the George Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial.
The proposed arch likely violates the Height of Buildings Act and the Comprehensive Plan for the Capital, which limits heights to 130 feet. The proposed Arch would be 250 feet tall. At this height, it would literally block sightlines to the most well-known and sacred memorials in our nation’s capital: Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial.
The most compelling reason not to build the arch is that it clashes with American architecture and values, especially for government monuments. It also invokes architectural plagiarism, as the United States would be borrowing a monument idea from other countries and cultures rather than reflecting the American patriotic spirit more meaningfully.
As to this last point, the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, France, for example, stands as a symbol of French national identity and patriotism. Napoleon Bonaparte commissioned it as a tribute to the French fallen, and it houses the French Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. By comparison, we already have monuments for these stated purposes at Arlington Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial, and together they connect our past with our ever-evolving future.
As the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the Administration succinctly stated, the arch causes profound harm by “obstructing a line of sight designed to represent the unification of the Nation following the Civil War and that has existed for nearly a century.” These are “historic,” “symbolic,” and “inspiring” views. To the Vietnam veterans, this “would dishonor their military and foreign service and the legacy of their comrades and other veterans buried at Arlington National Cemetery and would degrade their personal experience when visiting Arlington Cemetery or traveling around [the memorial area].” Military families have blasted Trump’s arch observation deck for tourists to see Arlington Cemetery, stating, “[w]e’re not a sideshow.”
Given its size, location, and lack of national meaning, the arch would dramatically change the character and beauty of this historic area. It is widely unpopular, like Trump’s other projects to remake Washington, D.C.’s architecture and skyline. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, 52% of Americans oppose the Arch project, including 41% who strongly oppose it, against just 21% who support it.
In a final effort to sway public opinion, Trump said the proposed Arch would house “a top-grade military complex” for “national defense,” along with tourist attractions. He claimed the Arch would “have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas . . . [and store] large quantities [of explosive ammunition].”
As expected, this sparked immediate backlash, being called “gonzo bonkers,” “a stupid, dangerous, and unworkable idea,” and “divorced from reality.” One military nonprofit stated, “Instead, focus on real issues that affect our active military members, veterans, and all Americans.” As there is civil litigation pending, the hope is the courts will end this unconstitutional behavior before it goes any further.
Otherwise, we may be looking at the Trump Arch much like Paris’ Tour Montparnasse, criticized as architecturally inconsistent with Paris’ urban beauty. It is a dark, monolithic building that towers over the other downtown buildings and obtrudes an otherwise vibrant, beautiful skyline. The contrast is ghastly. For a city known for its immense architectural beauty, the Tour Montparnasse is considered ugly and out of place. It is said that the “most beautiful view of Paris” is from the Tour Montparnasse itself. Why? Because it is the only place in Paris where you can't see the building itself.
Let’s not see the Trump Arch from any viewpoint.
James Saranteas is a volunteer for Lawyers Defending American Democracy and a State Lead for its Meeting the Moment initiative.
