The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts voted Thursday to grant final approval to President Donald Trump’s proposed 250-foot arch on the Virginia side of the Potomac, a decision that came even as hundreds of members of the public pleaded for the project to be reconsi
A warm, crowded room at the National Building Museum in Washington held its breath on Thursday—then watched the Commission of Fine Arts move forward anyway.
In a vote that came despite overwhelming public pushback. commissioners granted final approval to President Donald Trump’s towering arch. proposed between Arlington National Cemetery and the National Mall. The structure would rise to 250 feet and be built in a traffic circle on the Virginia side of the Potomac River. The decision cleared one federal hurdle in the project’s path. even as nearly everyone who spoke urged the panel to stop.
The commissioners—each appointed by Trump at the start of his term—had already granted preliminary approval to the arch’s design at their April meeting. That time, they had asked for additional information and suggested revisions. On Thursday morning, they approved a version that was “very similar” to the plan that had been presented before.
Rebecca Miller, the executive director of the D.C. Preservation League, framed it as a pattern of limited public input. After the vote. she told NPR that the administration’s pace continued to move “where the public doesn’t have an opportunity to participate.” She also said it reflected “the MO of this administration and also the MO of this particular review board.”.
For years, critics have pointed to the special nature of memorial construction on federal land in the nation’s capital. Monuments built on federal land in Washington generally require congressional approval. But speaking at the White House on Thursday, Trump told reporters he does not need Congress for the arch.
“We’re doing it. The land is owned by the secretary — by the Interior Department. We don’t need anything from Congress,” Trump said.
Inside the meeting room, the opposition was not abstract. Members of the public filled several rows. 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 letters against.
Over two hours, commissioners listened as people for and against the project made their pitches. Even so, public pleas did not lead to a long back-and-forth at the table.
Several commissioners asked questions and provided feedback to the team presenting the administration’s plan. They asked about expected visitor capacity and soil conditions. They also raised concerns about a glaring gap in the proposal: the lack of information about sculptures and artwork planned for the arch’s walls. both inside and on its exterior panels.
Vice Chair James McCrery II, an architect who previously led Trump’s ballroom project, put it plainly: “We’re looking at a well-designed arch, and it’s missing one of its key visual components.”
Despite the outcry, commission Chair Rodney Mims Cook Jr. proposed granting final approval—at the concept level—the way the commissioners had treated the design in April. The other members agreed.
Miller said the confusion for opponents was that the final vote seemed to come without the clarity the panel had been asking for. She said a typical final approval comes with “all of the aspects that they’re looking to do,” and that this was why the situation felt unclear.
As the commissioners wrapped up the agenda item. they acknowledged the concerns raised by the public but suggested many were outside their review. McCrery told the room. “I would … respectfully suggest that you bring those objections to proper venues.” He added that the Commission of Fine Arts is there “to work with designs that are presented to us … to make them better. to make them more appropriate. to make them more beautiful.”.
Even as the vote moved forward, architects made some changes since the April meeting.
Lead architect Nicolas Charbonneau walked commissioners through revisions his team had made. He described removing four gold lion sculptures at the base of the arch. He also said the team changed pedestrian access from an underground tunnel to surface-level walkways.
But they did not adopt another set of suggestions—one that would have removed the statues at the top of the design. The commissioners had recommended eliminating the 84-foot gilded statues of a winged Lady Liberty and a pair of eagles on top. Charbonneau said the president “considered” the change but “elected not to pursue.”.
Charbonneau told the panel that the statues would fit the monument’s character. He described it as “not primarily one that is dedicated to the dead, but the living, to this great country, and its perseverance.”
That framing collided with another central complaint: critics say the arch’s celebratory tone doesn’t belong so close to Arlington National Cemetery.
Trump has pitched the arch as a commemoration of the nation’s 250th anniversary. Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian sued the administration earlier this year to block the arch, arguing in part that it is disrespectful to those buried nearby at the nation’s largest military ceremony.
Several citizens who spoke at the meeting brought their own personal proximity to the cemetery into their remarks. Some said loved ones are buried at Arlington. Even Mary Anne Carter. a commissioner. praised the architects for removing some adornments and urged them to “keep in mind how simple [the Arlington] gravestones are.”.
Others pressed a different argument—scale and sightlines.
Many of the speakers criticized the arch’s size and placement. They argued it would block views of the Lincoln Memorial, which is roughly half the arch’s height. Several critics also pointed to a symbolic geometry of the landscape: the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House—Virginia’s monument to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee—face each other in a way critics say reflects the Civil War-era fracture and reconciliation the country later pursued.
They argued the arch would obstruct not only the view, but the meaning.
McCrery, the vice chair, responded by pointing to photographic renderings and arguing the arch actually needs to be its proposed size—bigger than Paris’ Arc de Triomphe—so that its opening does not obstruct views of the National Mall.
The Commission of Fine Arts says its job is to review proposed designs for memorials, coins, medals, and government buildings. It 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.” The panel’s approvals may signal a path forward. but it is not the only step.
Next, the National Capital Planning Commission—also packed with Trump appointees and focused on urban development and land use—is slated to discuss the structure at its next monthly meeting on June 4.
Neither commission issues construction permits, which would fall to local authorities. The project would be built on federal land managed by the National Park Service. and the park service would therefore need to approve it as well. The National Park Service has not responded to NPR’s request for comment.
Then comes the question that has become the heart of the legal fight: whether Congress must authorize the arch.
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 reached out to the White House for comment but did not hear back in time for publication.
Susan Douglas, a local activist opposed to the arch, rejected that argument at the meeting. She said, “Using a 100-year-old loophole to avoid seeking Congressional approval is specious at best.”
The veterans suing the administration argue that Trump does indeed need congressional authorization. A handful of top Democrats submitted an amicus brief agreeing with that position. They also commissioned a report from the Congressional Research Service, which came to the same conclusion.
For now, Thursday’s vote didn’t settle the congressional question, and it didn’t resolve the missing details commissioners themselves flagged—especially the uncertainty about sculptures and artwork planned for the arch’s walls.
But it did something opponents say is just as consequential: it moved a project that sits beside Arlington National Cemetery forward, faster than many expected, despite a flood of public opposition filling the room and arriving by letter.
Commission of Fine Arts Trump arch Arlington National Cemetery National Mall congressional approval National Park Service National Capital Planning Commission 250th anniversary veterans lawsuit D.C. Preservation League
So they just ignored everyone? Cool cool.
If it’s 250 feet and in a traffic circle… sounds like a bad idea already. But I guess commissions love approving stuff before anyone can even finish talking.
Wait, I thought that was supposed to go through a different approval, like the city or something? Also isn’t the Potomac side already like super protected or whatever? Seems weird they can “clear a hurdle” while people are literally begging them to reverse it.
Not surprised the Trump appointees did it. Half of these commissions are basically political rubber stamps. The article makes it sound like the public mattered but then they still went forward, so what’s the point of asking for “additional information” if they’re just gonna approve it anyway? Also 250 feet seems tall enough to mess with views near the Mall… but whatever, they’ll call it fine arts or something.