Highlights from the Meeting:
- National Capital Planning Commission votes 8-1 to move forward with the arch
- Paul Ingrassia, a Trump appointee, backs the initiative
- Commission seeks additional details before granting final approval
- Critics mention potential disruption near Arlington National Cemetery
On Thursday, a federal body pushed forward President Donald Trump’s triumphal arch project despite a nearly three-hour session filled with public opposition, marking a significant step in the president’s ambition to construct this imposing 250-foot structure.
The decision from the National Capital Planning Commission does not equate to final approval for the contentious project, which is slated for Memorial Circle, a traffic hub adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery. The commission requested further information from administration officials and architects prior to the final evaluation, a task that could be completed in September, as indicated by the chairman.
Nevertheless, the recent vote allows Trump to successfully navigate another bureaucratic obstacle, as he aims to commence construction on the arch and possibly finish it before the end of his term.
“This is long overdue; it deserves serious consideration in our city,” stated Paul Ingrassia, a Trump appointee at the General Services Administration and commissioner on the panel.
The commission voted 8-1 in favor of advancing the project. Commissioners aligned with the Trump administration and congressional Republicans supported the arch, while one commissioner representing Washington opposed it. Three additional Washington representatives chose to vote “present.”
Approximately 30 individuals—including architects, D.C. residents, military veterans, and families of those interred at Arlington National Cemetery—expressed their views before the commission’s vote. Many criticized the expedited review process, arguing that previous proposals for monuments in the city had received much deeper scrutiny.
Some attendees, such as Vietnam War veteran Michael Lemmon, who is currently engaged in a lawsuit to halt the project, voiced concerns that the large arch would compromise the solemnity of visiting Arlington National Cemetery and detract from the significance of nearby monuments.
“This proposal is hasty and inappropriate. We urge you to honor public sentiment and engage in a thoughtful design process to ensure a fitting memorial for America’s 250th anniversary,” asserted Priya Jain, chair of the heritage conservation committee at the Society of Architectural Historians.
Trump has previously remarked that the nation’s capital warrants a triumphal arch of greater stature than similar structures globally, citing the 164-foot-tall Arc de Triomphe in Paris. Additionally, he referred to a 1925 congressional plan that called for a structure at the current site of Memorial Circle.
“This was intended to be built many years ago,” Trump commented in the Oval Office in May, claiming that he holds the authority to pursue the project without needing new congressional approval. “Congress is not needed for this.”
Democrats have countered, insisting that the project must receive congressional review.
The outcome of Thursday’s vote was anticipated. Trump has reshaped the commission’s leadership by appointing his staff secretary, Will Scharf, as chairman and filling the panel with allies, facilitating favorable assessments of his initiatives. The commission had previously backed Trump’s proposed White House ballroom, even amidst considerable public dissent.
The commission’s staff, featuring urban planners who serve across various administrations and are not politically appointed, recommended that the administration modify the arch’s design to align with the Height of Buildings Act, which limits most constructions in Washington to a maximum height of 130 feet. However, the Trump administration and Scharf have contended that federal projects,including the arch, should be exempt from this law.
Scharf expressed on Thursday that he found the administration’s argument regarding the non-applicability of the Height Act to the 250-foot arch “compelling,” and suggested that the commission could address this issue in future meetings.
“My stance is that today we are merely evaluating the project for preliminary approval, thus there is no need to address the broader implications of the Height of Buildings Act on federal projects at this moment,” he explained.
The Commission of Fine Arts, another federal entity filled with Trump allies, granted its final approval for the project in May.
Though Trump administration officials have not disclosed the estimated cost or specific funding sources for the project, they have indicated plans to utilize a mix of public and private funding.
The proposed arch has generated significant public feedback as it has progressed, with the National Park Service reporting over 100,000 comments received during a recent 10-day public comment period.
According to an April Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, 52% of Americans oppose the arch, while only 21% support it.
Evan Cash, representing D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson on the commission, was the sole member to vote against the project on Thursday. He raised several reservations, including concerns regarding the Trump administration’s intent to sidestep congressional regulations on monument construction and whether any president, present or future, should be permitted to construct tall structures that alter the character of Washington.
“Our skyline didn’t form by happenstance,” Cash remarked.
Trump appointees contended that the arch’s concept enjoys wide approval. Ingrassia claimed that a model arch currently showcased at a fair celebrating the nation’s anniversary has received favorable remarks. “That display attracted veterans, families, and citizens from all political backgrounds,” he asserted.
Some individuals at the meeting suggested alternative locations for the arch, such as areas near Nationals Park, citing that the current site adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery may be disrespectful and disruptive. The Trump administration has proposed working on the project for 20 hours each day over a span of up to three years, a pace that could potentially enable its completion prior to Trump’s departure from office.
“Under this plan, families would lay their loved ones to rest accompanied by the sounds of pile drivers and concrete pumps,” remarked Linsay Burnett, a veteran of the Army who served in Iraq two decades ago. “We owe our deceased at least some peace.”
Scharf later acknowledged these comments and encouraged the team overseeing the arch’s development to create a plan that mitigates disruptions during funerals at the cemetery.
“This illustrates how public testimony can significantly influence our commission’s deliberative process,” Scharf concluded.
Dan Diamond is a White House reporter for The Washington Post, focusing on policy, public health, and President Trump’s impact on Washington.
