A group of veterans, relatives and preservationists are mounting a legal and public campaign to block President Trump’s proposed 250-foot Triumphal Arch at Memorial Circle, the roundabout just outside the main entrance to Arlington National Cemetery.
The proposal would place a towering monument steps from the cemetery, which is the final resting place for more than 400,000 active-duty service members, veterans and their families. Supporters in the administration say the arch is meant to celebrate the nation’s 250th anniversary and inspire patriotism; critics call it a presidential vanity project that would reshape a historically significant landscape, disrupt the symbolic sightline to the Lincoln Memorial, complicate traffic and disrespect those buried nearby.
In February, three Vietnam War veterans — Shaun Byrnes, Jon Gundersen and Michael Lemmon — joined architectural historian Calder Loth in filing suit against the administration. The plaintiffs are represented by the advocacy group Public Citizen and argue the project violates federal law. Their lead attorney, Nicolas Sansone, says the case rests on the Commemorative Works Act and provisions of Title 40 of the U.S. Code, which require congressional authorization for new memorials or monuments on federal land in Washington, D.C.
The administration has countered that Congress already approved a similar plan in 1925, when lawmakers authorized a pair of 166-foot columns at that section of Arlington Memorial Bridge. Those columns were never built, and the plaintiffs say relying on a near-century-old authorization would allow unchecked changes to the capital’s monuments.
A federal judge has not yet ruled on the case. In response to an early hearing, the administration agreed to give 14 days’ notice before beginning construction so the plaintiffs could seek emergency relief if needed, but construction has not started.
Despite the pending litigation, the administration has moved the design through federal review bodies usually consulted after congressional approval. The Commission of Fine Arts, whose membership includes Trump appointees, gave final approval to the design last month. The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), chaired by a Trump staffer, provided preliminary approval at a recent meeting, allowing staff to request more technical details such as lighting, traffic and environmental reviews. Evan Cash, the lone NCPC commissioner to vote against the project, said his opposition stemmed from the lack of congressional authorization and limited public consensus.
The National Park Service is accepting public comments on the proposal through June 15. Administration materials submitted to NPS describe a two- to three-year construction timeline and outline permanent changes to a site long regarded as part of the capital’s monumental core.
Veterans and family members who have spoken out at public meetings and in comment submissions described deep personal objections. Shaun Byrnes, an 83-year-old Navy veteran who served in Vietnam and later spent three decades in the U.S. Foreign Service, met reporters near the Memorial Bridge and said he opposed the arch not only for Arlington but for the comrades he lost and never recovered. Byrnes described the way memorials traditionally arise after a leader’s death as a communal act of remembrance; he said this arch does not fit that tradition.
Others testifying at commission meetings included family members with relatives buried at Arlington and veterans who said the monument would be an affront to the cemetery’s purpose. Stephen Eubank, who has seven relatives interred at Arlington, called the arch a “monumental disgrace.” Marine Corps combat veteran Jimi Shaughnessy said the project wastes public land and resources that should instead support service members and their families.
Public reaction has been robust: roughly 1,700 written comments were submitted online before the NCPC meeting, and nearly two dozen people spoke at that session, many expressing concern about the arch’s intent and impact. Critics point to mixed messaging from the administration and the project’s proponents: the White House has framed the arch as marking the nation’s 250th anniversary, while the president has also suggested on record that the monument would be for him personally. The project’s lead designer has described the structure as oriented toward the living rather than the dead, a characterization some veterans found inappropriate given the site’s proximity to the cemetery.
Legal advocates warn of precedent if the administration is allowed to proceed without explicit congressional approval. Sansone said allowing any prior, unused authorization to justify a new, very different memorial would open the door to “unfettered building” and significant alterations to the capital’s historic memorial fabric.
Some advocates have urged the administration to address practical concerns as well as legal ones: independent environmental and historic preservation reviews, detailed traffic and aviation impact studies, and clearer justification for the monument’s purpose. Opponents also note funding and policy choices as relevant context; a number of critics argued the administration should prioritize resources for veterans’ services and federal agencies involved in care and preservation over constructing a large new monument.
Major veterans’ organizations have generally stayed out of the dispute or said they have no formal position. Arlington National Cemetery has acknowledged awareness of the review process but directed questions to the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service because the proposed site lies outside cemetery property. A Department of the Interior spokesperson said the administration believes the arch would “enhance the visitor experience” and serve as a visual reminder of American sacrifices.
For now, the project remains caught between administrative approvals and a pending court challenge. Plaintiffs and their legal team say the right path is clear: any new commemorative work of this scale and sensitivity should start with Congress and broad public deliberation, not unilateral action by an administration. Opponents vow to continue their fight in court and at public review hearings so that a landmark site near Arlington is not altered without clear legislative and civic consent.