The Commission of Fine Arts voted Thursday to give final approval to President Trump’s towering arch between Arlington National Cemetery and the National Mall, despite overwhelming public pushback and numerous unanswered questions.
That approval clears just one of the potential hurdles in the path to building a 250-foot structure in a traffic circle on the Virginia side of the Potomac River. Still, it moved faster than many expected.
The commissioners — all appointed by Trump at the start of his term — had granted preliminary approval to the design at their April meeting. They had also asked for more information and suggested several revisions, only to greenlight a very similar version on Thursday morning.
“This continued desire to move things at a pace where the public doesn’t have an opportunity to participate seems to be the MO of this administration and also the MO of this particular review board,” Rebecca Miller, executive director of the D.C. Preservation League, told NPR after the vote.
Monuments built on federal land in Washington generally require congressional approval. But speaking at the White House Thursday, Trump said he does not require Congressional approval for the arch.
“We’re doing it,” he told reporters. “The land is owned by the secretary — by the Interior Department. We don’t need anything from Congress.”
At the commission meeting, over the course of some two hours in a warm, crowded room in D.C.’s National Building Museum, commissioners sat at a long table lined with miniature models and listened as those involved with and opposed to the project made their respective pitches.
Members of the public filled the several rows of seats, and Commission Secretary Thomas Luebke said some 600 others had written in ahead of time, with “99.5% of them … in opposition” to the arch. He read from one of only three letters in favor, and one of the many more against it.
Despite passionate objections from those in the room — including from representatives of historic preservation groups and longtime D.C. residents — there was little discussion among the commissioners.
Several asked questions and provided feedback to the team presenting the administration’s plan, including about the expected visitor capacity and soil conditions. One of their concerns was the lack of information about sculptures and artwork planned for the arch’s walls, both inside and on its exterior panels.
“We’re looking at a well-designed arch, and it’s missing one of its key visual components,” said Vice Chair James McCrery II, the architect who previously led Trump’s ballroom project.
Ultimately, however, commission Chair Rodney Mims Cook Jr. proposed granting final approval — as opposed to concept-level — for the design, and the other members agreed. He said commissioners look forward to seeing more details of the arch’s sculptures and artworks, though it’s not clear what degree of input the panel may have after giving the final go-ahead.
“Typically, a final approval comes with all of the aspects that they’re looking to do, so I think that’s what was confusing,” said Miller.
As they wrapped up that agenda item, the commissioners acknowledged the public’s concerns but said many of them are beyond the scope of their review.
“I would … respectfully suggest that you bring those objections to proper venues,” McCrery said. “This is the United States Commission of Fine Arts, and we’re here to work with designs that are presented to us … to make them better, to make them more appropriate, to make them more beautiful.”
Concerns were raised, but they didn’t slow the project down
Lead architect Nicolas Charbonneau walked through the changes his team had made to the proposal since the last meeting, like removing the four gold lion sculptures at the base of the arch and changing pedestrian access from an underground tunnel to surface-level walkways.
But they did not adopt the commission’s suggestion to nix the 84-foot gilded statues of a winged Lady Liberty and a pair of eagles on top, which Charbonneau said “the president considered … but elected not to pursue.”
Charbonneau said in his presentation that the gold statues on top fit with the “character” of the monument, which he described as “not primarily one that is dedicated to the dead, but the living, to this great country, and its perseverance.”
But while Trump has pitched the arch as a commemoration of the nation’s 250th anniversary, critics say the celebratory tone is inappropriate for a monument just steps from the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery.
A group of Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian sued the administration earlier this year to block the arch, in part because they say it is disrespectful to those buried nearby at the nation’s largest military ceremony.
And many of the concerned citizens who spoke at the meeting — some of whom have loved ones buried at the cemetery — voiced similar concerns. Even one of the commissioners, Mary Anne Carter, praised the architects for removing some of the arch’s adornments and urged them to “keep in mind how simple [the Arlington] gravestones are.”
Many of the speakers criticized the arch’s scale and location. They argued it would block views of the Lincoln Memorial, which is roughly half its height.
Several critics of the arch pointed out that the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House — the Virginia monument to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee — deliberately face each other as a symbol of the nation’s Civil War-era fracturing and reconciliation. They said the arch would obstruct not only the sightline but the lesson it represents.
McCrery, the vice chair, pointed to photographic renderings to argue that the arch actually needs to be its proposed size — bigger than Paris’ Arc de Triomphe — in order for its opening not to obstruct views of the National Mall.
What comes next?
The commission, tasked with reviewing designs for proposed memorials, coins, medals and government buildings, describes its authority as “giving expert advice to the President, the Congress and the federal and District of Columbia governments on matters of design and aesthetics.”
But it’s not the only body that has to sign off on the arch’s construction. The National Capital Planning Commission, which focuses more on urban development and land use — and is also packed with Trump appointees — is slated to discuss the structure at its next monthly meeting on June 4.
Neither of these commissions actually issues permits for construction, which would fall to local authorities. And, because the project would be built on federal land managed by the National Park Service, it would need that agency’s approval, too. The park service has not responded to NPR’s request for comment.
There’s also the issue of congressional approval.
The administration has argued in court filings reported by the Washington Post that Congress authorized the arch when it approved the design for 166-foot-tall columns at the same location in 1925, which were never built. NPR has reached out to the White House for comment but did not hear back in time for publication.
“Using a 100-year-old loophole to avoid seeking Congressional approval is specious at best,” Susan Douglas, a local activist opposed to the arch, said at the meeting.
The veterans suing the administration argue that Trump does indeed need congressional authorization, and a handful of top Democrats submitted an amicus brief in agreement. They also commissioned a report from the Congressional Research Service, which came to the same conclusion.
