Donald Trump’s plan to erect a large victory arch on the Memorial Circle traffic island in Washington, DC has moved to the next review stage despite strong objections. The National Capital Planning Commission voted 9-1 on June 4 to advance the concept plans.
Public representatives, preservationists, and war veterans spoke out against the project during the meeting, particularly due to its location just outside Arlington National Cemetery. In addition to those attending the chamber, about 1,700 people submitted comments, most of which were negative.
Legal Debate Focuses on 130-Foot Height Limit
Commission Chair William Scharf referenced the 1910 Height of Buildings Act covering the capital in his opening remarks. Scharf argued that applying the law to federal projects could be legally problematic and warned that local courts asserting jurisdiction over federal plans could have serious consequences.
Scharf cited two past examples exceeding the height limit: the Mason Temple, which received a congressional exemption, and the National Archives building, which reached 166 feet without congressional approval. He expressed his personal view that the Height of Buildings Act does not apply to federal construction.
However, this stance was challenged by commission member and Washington, DC City Council member Evan Cash. Cash reminded the commission’s legal counsel that the law in question is a federal statute enacted by Congress.
Veterans and Preservationists Strongly Oppose the Project
Veterans speaking during the public comment period argued that placing the monument adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery is unacceptable. The area is regarded as the nation’s largest military burial ground, and the planned arch was seen as casting a shadow over this memory.
Former Marine Jimi Shaughnessy criticized the project from personal and national memory perspectives, saying the structure symbolizes arrogance. Another veteran, Stephen Eubank, called the arch a profound disrespect to the nation and an insult to the soldiers buried in the cemetery.
Holly Berkley Fletcher likened the structure to the grandiose, self-aggrandizing architecture seen in authoritarian regimes. Fletcher expressed the view that it is part of an attempt to rewrite history and emphasized the importance of remembering the Civil War, white supremacy, and the struggle for democracy.
Architects Warn About Scale and Visibility
Architect David Parker, speaking among preservationists, objected to citing the 166-foot columns approved but never built for the Memorial Bridge in the 1930s as precedent for this project. Parker explained that those columns were much narrower and spaced farther apart, whereas the proposed arch is planned to be 170 feet wide and 90 feet deep.
Parker noted that previous designs were on a scale that would not impact the view, while the proposed massive arch would significantly alter the environmental appearance. Another architect, Shady Millagy, presented an alternative larger design featuring large escalators similar to those in Trump Tower inside the structure.
Evan Cash Cast the Sole Dissenting Vote
Before voting, commission members shared their views on the project. Despite requests for more information on traffic safety, risks to aircraft, and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act included in the NCPC management report, only Cash voted against the plan.
Cash said the area already holds strong meaning for many people and is almost a monument in itself. He expressed uncertainty whether the project fits this monumental context and stressed the need to clarify how the design relates to the site’s memory.
Cash also pointed out that the project has not passed the National Capital Memorials Advisory Commission. It was noted that the Department of the Interior views the arch not as a monument but as a structure to promote patriotism and beautify the capital.
The commission member said he hopes the Department of the Interior will clarify its authority, purpose, and framework regarding the project at the next meeting. The NCPC’s next meeting is scheduled for July 1.
