National Guard Members walk near a replica of President Trump’s proposed arch at the Great American State Fair on the National Mall in Washington, DC, in July.
Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty Images
President Trump’s weekend announcement that his proposed D.C. arch will double as a “top grade Military Complex” has raised even more questions about the controversial structure — and the already-fraught approval process.
Trump wrote Sunday on Truth Social that the 250-foot structure will “house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas,” in addition to storing ammunition.
It’s a far cry from the administration’s original vision for the arch, which Trump first unveiled last October.
At the time, he told journalists it was being built to honor “me.” The administration has since characterized it as a tribute to the United States’ 250th anniversary and a tourist attraction.
“The Triumphal Arch in Memorial Circle is going to be one of the most iconic landmarks not only in Washington, D.C., but throughout the world,” the White House has repeatedly told NPR, as recently as Tuesday.
National Park Service renderings and presentations touted an observation deck with views of Arlington National Cemetery and the National Mall, potentially including a cafe and gift shop. Those were approved by the Trump-packed Commission of Fine Arts in May.
But the word “military” did not surface until earlier this month, when Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced on social media that excavation work would soon begin at the “Great Triumphal Arch and Military Observation Deck.”
That announcement drew immediate pushback — and a judge’s intervention — because it still needs a final green light from the National Capital Planning Commission. That cannot happen until other federally required historic preservation reviews are completed.
Historic preservation advocates have long said that the process was moving too quickly, and are now struggling with what to make of Trump’s abrupt about-face.
“So suddenly, to take a resource that was not about security at all … and now turn that on its head, it seems to me we’re back to square one because we’re reviewing a different facility than when this started,” said Charles Birnbaum, CEO and founding president of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, one of the outside groups involved in the historic preservation review.
As part of that process, the National Park Service last week asked preservation groups to provide feedback by Monday on its proposed “Memorandum of Agreement” (MOA) to move forward with the arch. Birnbaum told the agency over email — and reiterated to NPR — that “we view this MOA as DOA [dead on arrival].”
Birnbaum called the process “whiplash-inducing.” He said the next steps are unclear, especially since a fortified military site would presumably require additional measures, from fencing to security, that have not come before federal panels yet.
The White House, Interior Department and National Park Service did not respond to NPR’s questions about plans to submit new proposals for review. The Federal Aviation Administration also referred questions to the White House.
The FAA had just released findings on Friday of a monthslong evaluation, concluding that the arch — which would stand directly in the approach path into D.C.’s main airport — would not pose a risk to airspace. But that review did not take into account the presence of military drones, as noted by U.S. Rep. Don Beyer, a Virginia Democrat.
“Putting a drone launching site directly in the landing path for DCA is a stupid, dangerous, and unworkable idea,” Beyer said in a statement Tuesday. “But if Trump wants to pursue it, the FAA’s prior work over the past six months to rubber stamp this proposal with a dubious safety study will be obsolete, and they will have to do it all over again.”
Will the national security argument work for Trump again?
The arch was already facing legal questions, including about its compliance with D.C. building height limits.
It’s also the subject of an ongoing lawsuit: A group including three Vietnam War veterans sued earlier this year over its lack of Congressional approval. The administration has not sought it, citing a 1925 law that allowed for the construction of a pair of 166-foot columns at that location that were ultimately never built.
The lawyer representing the veterans, Nicolas Sansone of Public Citizen Litigation Group, said in a statement Sunday that “the President’s new justification for this wildly unpopular construction does nothing to cure its fundamental illegality.”
Trump said in his post that he agreed to convert the arch into a military complex “at the strong request of the United States Military, and for national security purposes.” A Pentagon spokesperson told NPR it had nothing to add beyond Trump’s post.
Harold Hongju Koh, a former State Department legal advisor who now teaches international law at Yale Law School, called Trump’s justification “laughable and pretextual.”
“If there are dangers to which you need to have drones and snipers … Why don’t you just move them there now? Why do you need to build an arch?” Koh asked. “Secondly, if the arch is what’s creating the national security problem, so much that you need to have these mobile protections on board, then just don’t build the arch.”
Koh said that if Trump is truly concerned about a threat on the National Mall, he should hold a classified briefing to that effect and ask Congress to militarize the existing monuments. But he thinks it’s more likely that Trump is playing the national security card in the hopes of boosting his case in court.
“It’s the lipstick he puts on every pig,” Koh said. “Immigration is for national security. Terrorists are for national security. Building a border wall is for national security. Building a ballroom is for national security.”
The Trump administration has argued that construction of its White House ballroom must continue for national security purposes, citing the military complex it plans to build underneath. The Supreme Court allowed construction to continue in a ruling earlier this month, citing issues of plaintiffs’ standing rather than the project’s underlying legality.
But experts are skeptical that a national security argument can be made for the arch, especially since the structure would stand a stone’s throw from both the Pentagon and Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.
“The difference is that the bunker reflects a widely accepted need to protect the president. It’s bipartisan,” said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and military expert at the Center for Strategic International Studies. “There doesn’t seem to be any need — there certainly hasn’t been any need articulated beforehand — about why this facility would need drones and snipers.”
Koh and others interviewed by NPR believe the administration is rushing to start construction before the November midterm elections, which could shift the makeup of Congress and potentially bring the arch to a halt.
On Tuesday, a group of lawmakers — five Democrats and one Independent — wrote a letter to Burgum demanding that the administration stop work on the arch. They questioned its legality and cited the Trump administration’s own findings about its negative impacts on Arlington National Cemetery and other nearby historic sites.
“Putting the President’s ego ahead of these memorials adds another stain on this administration’s legacy,” they wrote.
