veterans sue – A group of Vietnam War veterans and a historian are suing the Trump administration to stop construction of a proposed 250-foot Triumphal Arch near Arlington National Cemetery, arguing it needs congressional authorization under federal law. President Trump and
For Shaun Byrnes, the argument isn’t abstract. It’s measured in steps from the traffic circle where a 250-foot “Triumphal Arch” is planned—on a route he passes near the main entrance to Arlington National Cemetery.
Byrnes, an 83-year-old U.S. Navy veteran who served in Vietnam. arrived outside the cemetery entrance on Arlington Memorial Bridge on Monday. June 8. 2026. where Public Citizen is representing him and other veterans in a lawsuit filed to block construction. Byrnes said he cannot reconcile the project with how the nation traditionally honors the dead at Arlington.
“There are other important monuments to our best presidents in Washington,” Byrnes 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.”.
He also pointed to the grief that never ends when families lose people they cannot bury. “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,” Byrnes said.
During his Navy service, Byrnes said he was seriously injured in South Vietnam. He described one day of heavy firing when he stepped away from a platform moments before his group’s gun overheated and exploded. killing three men and leaving him with severe burns. He later spent 30 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, primarily based in the Soviet Union. Byrnes described himself as politically moderate and said he never imagined suing his own government. “I’m a loyal citizen. I love my country.”.
The suit, filed in February, targets what veterans and their advocates say is an approval process that moves forward without the congressional mandate they believe federal law requires.
Public Citizen says the challenge centers on two statutes: the Commemorative Works Act and part of Title 40 of the U.S. Code, which requires congressional authorization for any new memorial or monument on federal land in Washington, D.C. The plaintiffs include three Vietnam War veterans—Shaun Byrnes, Jon Gundersen, and Michael Lemmon—along with architectural historian Calder Loth. Public Citizen is represented by lead attorney Nicolas Sansone.
Sansone told NPR the case hinges on the idea that a project like this begins with Congress. “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. ’” he said.
The Trump administration’s position is that Congress already authorized the project in 1925. when it approved a pair of 166-foot columns for the same section of Arlington Memorial Bridge—columns that were never built. even though the bridge project itself was completed nearly a century ago. Sansone argued that the administration’s reading would expand the meaning of prior authorization.
“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.
The administration has said it will give 14 days’ notice before starting construction. That, the administration says, is meant to give the plaintiffs time to re-file an emergency request to stop the work. But the judge in the case has not yet issued a ruling on the legality of the project itself.
Even as the lawsuit is pending. the administration has advanced the proposal through federal design review processes that typically come after Congress approves a commemorative project. The Commission for Fine Arts—described in the reporting as packed with Trump appointees—gave final approval to the design last month. The National Capital Planning Commission. a 12-member body chaired by a Trump staffer. provided a preliminary stamp of approval at its meeting last week.
That preliminary approval allows the commission to request additional 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 accepting public comments on the arch through June 15. The materials submitted by the administration to the NPS describe a construction timeline of two to three years and say the arch would permanently alter a historically significant landscape.
Sansone said the administration is attempting to move forward with a monumental reshaping of the capital without what he views as the proper democratic check. “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. ” he said.
At the National Capital Planning Commission meeting last week, Evan Cash was the sole commissioner to vote against the arch. Cash, who has served on the commission for over a decade, said his vote was influenced by what he described as a 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,” Cash said. Cash said he hopes the administration comes to a July meeting with “some clarity, some authorization, some purpose.”
That “purpose” question has become a focus of the opposition in the public square as well.
Nearly 1,700 people submitted comments online before the National Capital Planning Commission met last Thursday, where nearly two dozen people spoke against the arch in the room. Two of the speakers said it was their first time protesting anything.
Stephen Eubank, who said seven of his relatives are interred at Arlington National Cemetery, called the proposal an insult. “The proposed Monumental Arch will be a monumental disgrace to the nation and a monstrous insult to the heroes in the cemetery. ” Eubank said. “I hope those of you foisting it on us will be haunted forever by the ghosts of those 400,000.”.
Several speakers were military themselves, and many described a personal relationship to the grounds where the arch is planned—near the traffic circle between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.
Central to the confusion is what the arch is meant to honor. The administration has broadly characterized it as a commemoration of the country’s 250th birthday. But in October, when asked whom the arch was meant to honor, President Trump told a journalist, “Me.”
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].”
Marine Corps combat veteran Jimi Shaughnessy said the shifting framing leaves the question unanswered—and that the arch’s intended audience appears to be the president.
“Who is this arch for? Is it for me? The president has already answered that question — it is for him,” Shaughnessy said at the meeting. He called it a waste of time, land, and money.
Shaughnessy said his family’s military service dates back nearly 200 years. He said 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,” Shaughnessy 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 wants to help service members, Shaughnessy said, he should restore the funding his administration has stripped from agencies including the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Park Service.
Major veterans’ groups have not publicly weighed in on the arch. The American Legion told NPR it does not have a position on the issue.
Arlington National Cemetery said it is aware of the “ongoing process. ” but referred questions to the Department of the Interior and National Park Service because the proposed site is outside cemetery property. A spokesperson for the Department of the Interior said 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. ” adding that it would serve “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.”.
Trump’s administration has defended the arch in its proposal as a way to “celebrate the triumphs of the American people. inspire patriotism and love of country. and beautify our nation’s capital.” But for Byrnes and the veterans who are suing. the project is not only about aesthetics or traffic—it is about whether the nation is treating the space with the respect their loved ones were promised. and whether Congress has the last word on what belongs on federal memorial ground.
Arlington National Cemetery Triumphal Arch Public Citizen Shaun Byrnes Jon Gundersen Michael Lemmon Calder Loth Nicolas Sansone Commemorative Works Act Title 40 Commission for Fine Arts National Capital Planning Commission National Park Service Evan Cash Jimi Shaughnessy Department of the Interior