Some of the most forceful objections against President Trump’s proposed triumphal arch are coming from — and on behalf of — veterans.
That’s because the 250-foot structure would be built on a roundabout near the main entrance to Arlington National Cemetery, the final resting place for over 400,000 active-duty service members, veterans and their families.
The Trump administration says in its proposal that the purpose of the arch is to “celebrate the triumphs of the American people, inspire patriotism and love of country, and beautify our nation’s capital.”
But critics of the arch call it a presidential “vanity project” that will complicate traffic, disrupt the symbolic view between the cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial and disrespect those buried on those nearby hallowed grounds. Along with Democratic lawmakers, detractors also say it can’t proceed without congressional authorization – which Trump has said he does not need and will not seek.
A group of three Vietnam War veterans, joined by an architectural historian, is suing the administration on those grounds to try to block construction of the arch.
One of those veterans, 83-year-old Shaun Byrnes of Virginia, met NPR on Monday outside the cemetery entrance on Arlington Memorial Bridge. It’s just steps from the grassy traffic circle where Byrnes hopes an arch will never stand.
“There are other important monuments to our best presidents in Washington,” he said. “They were all constructed not at the direction of those great men, but after they had passed away by our citizens as a way of honoring them and keeping their memories alive. This current arch does not check any of those boxes.”
In the fight against the arch, Byrnes says he is thinking of his friends, and not just those who are buried in Arlington.
“Perhaps more important, at least more meaningful to me, is I have a lot of friends that I lost that are not buried here because we never recovered them,” he said.
Byrnes served in the Navy for four years of the Vietnam War — many of those in South Vietnam, where he was seriously injured. He recalled one day of heavy firing, when he happened to step away from the platform just moments before one of his group’s guns overheated and exploded, killing three men and leaving him with severe burns.
Byrnes went on to spend 30 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, primarily based in the Soviet Union. He identifies as politically moderate and said he never could have imagined suing his own government: “I’m a loyal citizen. I love my country.”
Critics say the approval process is premature without Congress’ green light
Byrnes joined fellow veterans Jon Gundersen and Michael Lemmon, whom he’s known for decades through the foreign service, and architectural historian Calder Loth to file the lawsuit in February. They are represented by the progressive consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen.
Nicolas Sansone, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said the case hinges on two statutes — the Commemorative Works Act and part of Title 40 of the U.S. Code — that requires Congressional authorization for any new memorial or monument on federal land in D.C.
“The starting point for a monument like this is an act of Congress saying, ‘Hey, we need to build a monument, and here’s what it should be, and here’s where it should be situated, and here’s what we want it to represent and the interests we want it to serve, with that democratic mandate,'” Sansone told NPR.
The Trump administration has argued in legal filings that Congress already approved the project back in 1925, when it authorized a pair of 166-foot columns for that same section of Arlington Memorial Bridge. But they were never constructed, even though the bridge project was completed nearly a century ago, as Sansone notes.
“If the administration can use any sort of prior authorization to build a monument … [that would] essentially allow unfettered building and unlimited adjustments to existing monuments that have already become part of the national fabric,” Sansone said.
As a result of an earlier hearing, the administration says it will give 14 days’ notice before starting construction, to give the plaintiffs time to re-file another emergency request to stop it. But the judge in the case has not yet issued a ruling on the legality of the project itself.
Even so, the administration has proceeded to bring its proposal before the two federal agencies tasked with giving feedback, usually after Congress approves.
The Commission for Fine Arts, which is packed with Trump appointees, gave final approval to the design last month, despite public protestation and unanswered questions about its exterior engravings.
The National Capital Planning Commission — a 12-member body chaired by a Trump staffer — also gave the proposal a preliminary stamp of approval at its meeting last week. That allows it to request more information about details such as lighting plans, road and air traffic impacts and federally required third-party environmental and historic preservation reviews.
Separately, the National Park Service is now accepting public comments on the arch through June 15. Publicly available materials submitted by the administration to NPS outline a proposed construction timeline that would take two to three years — and permanently alter the historically significant landscape.
“The idea that one president can unilaterally drive a project forward to kind of reshape the monumental core of the capitol, I think poses real problems no matter who the president is,” Sansone said.
Evan Cash was the sole National Capital Planning Commission member to vote against the arch at last week’s meeting. During the commissioners’ discussion, he said his vote was influenced by the lack of Congressional and public buy-in.
“Normally, when we’re dealing … with a commemorative project, we have a framework for understanding what the project is trying to accomplish,” said Cash, who has served on the commission for over a decade.
Cash said he hopes the administration comes to its July meeting with “some clarity, some authorization, some purpose.”
Who is the arch for? Not us, say veterans and their loved ones
Members of the public have voiced a wide range of concerns and criticisms of the arch. Nearly 1,700 people submitted comments online before the National Capital Planning Commission met last Thursday, where nearly two dozen spoke out against it in the room.
Two of them said it was their first time protesting anything. Many said they had loved ones buried at Arlington, while several served in the military themselves.
“The proposed Monumental Arch will be a monumental disgrace to the nation and a monstrous insult to the heroes in the cemetery,” said Stephen Eubank, who said seven of his relatives are interred there. “I hope those of you foisting it on us will be haunted forever by the ghosts of those 400,000.”
One major point of contention — and confusion — has been the purpose of the arch.
The administration has broadly characterized the arch as a commemoration of the country’s 250th birthday. But in October, when asked whom it was meant to honor, Trump told a journalist: “Me.”
And, despite its proximity to the nation’s most prestigious military cemetery, lead architect Nicolas Charbonneau told the Commission for Fine Arts that the arch would be “not primarily a monument dedicated to the dead, but to the living, to this great country and its [perserverence].”
“Who is this arch for? Is it for me? The president has already answered that question — it is for him,” Marine Corps combat veteran Jimi Shaughnessy said at the meeting, calling it a waste of time, land and money.
Shaughnessy said his family’s history of military service dates back nearly 200 years. His great-grandparents — who “led the charge on horseback against Pancho Villa” and treated the wounded as a World War II nurse — are both buried at Arlington.
“Service members and their families navigate many transitions throughout a military career and beyond,” he said. “That final transition — from service to rest — is not theirs to manage. It is ours. It falls to us, the living, to receive our wounded and our dead with the highest esteem and care. An arch is not what they need.”
If Trump really wants to help service members, Shaughnessy said, he would restore the funding his administration has stripped from agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Park Service.
Major veterans’ groups have not publicly weighed in on the arch; the American Legion telling NPR it does not have a position on the issue.
A spokesperson for Arlington National Cemetery said it is aware of the “ongoing process,” but referred questions to the Department of the Interior and National Park Service as the proposed site is outside cemetery property.
A spokesperson for the Department of the Interior told NPR in an email last week that the arch will “enhance the visitor experience at Arlington National Cemetery for veterans, the families of the fallen, and all Americans alike, serving as a visual reminder of the noble sacrifices borne by so many American heroes throughout our 250-year history so we can enjoy our freedoms today.”
