DC, Virginia Sue to Block Trump’s 250-Foot Arch After Judge Questions Plan - Newsweek

Washington, D.C., and Virginia sued the Trump administration on Saturday to block President Donald Trump’s proposed 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery, escalating the legal battle days before construction could begin.

The two jurisdictions called the project “flagrantly unlawful” and asked a federal court to halt construction and site preparation at Memorial Circle.

The lawsuit alleges that the administration lacks required congressional authorization, that the structure would violate statutory height restrictions and that federal officials failed to fulfill environmental and historic-preservation requirements.

“The court should not allow this cynical gambit to succeed,” lawyers for D.C. and Virginia wrote, accusing the administration of rushing toward construction before courts have an opportunity to intervene.

The complaint names the National Park Service (NPS), the Interior Department, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and NPS official Jessica Bowron as defendants.

D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb told Newsweek on Saturday that construction of the arch “is flagrantly illegal and will cause serious, immediate, and irreparable harm to the District and its residents.”

“We’re filing this lawsuit now to protect DC’s unique interests and critical role in preserving the safeguards that keep our nation’s capital beautiful and safe,” Schwalb said.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle told Newsweek on Saturday that the arch would be “one of the most iconic landmarks not only in Washington, D.C., but throughout the world.”

“It will serve as a gateway to 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,” Ingle said. “President Trump will continue to honor our veterans and give the greatest Nation on earth—America—the glory it deserves.”

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones told Newsweek on Saturday that Trump’s proposed arch was an “illegal vanity project” and “an affront to this hallowed ground and the extraordinary sacrifices it represents.”

“The Commonwealth has a solemn duty and a profound interest in preserving the dignity of this sacred place,” Jones said. “We will vigorously litigate to protect its sanctity and honor the legacy of those who made the ultimate sacrifice.”

D.C. and Virginia argue that the arch cannot legally be built without approval from Congress.

Their complaint cites the Commemorative Works Act, which requires specific congressional authorization for covered commemorative works, as well as a separate federal statute that says a building or structure cannot be erected on federal land in the District without express congressional authority.

The jurisdictions also contend that the project violates the Height of Buildings Act. The proposed arch would rise 250 feet, while the lawsuit says the law generally bars buildings exceeding 130 feet on a business street or avenue in D.C. The plaintiffs argue that the arch qualifies as a building and does not fall within the statute’s exceptions.

Those claims have not been adjudicated.

The lawsuit brings eight counts, including alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act. It asks the court to set aside federal approvals and preliminarily and permanently prohibit construction or site preparation.

The lawsuit could add a significant new dimension to the legal battle since D.C. and Virginia contend they would themselves suffer concrete harm from the arch.

That issue comes amid a separate case brought by three Vietnam War veterans and a historic preservationist in which the Justice Department has argued that the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate sufficient harm to establish legal standing.

The new complaint says construction would disrupt traffic and emergency services, force the jurisdictions to devote government resources to responding to the project and harm environmental and historic interests.

The NPS has said construction would take approximately two to three years and occur for 20 hours per day, according to material cited in the complaint. The project would close the south side of Memorial Circle, reduce westbound traffic from Memorial Bridge to two lanes and bring substantial construction traffic into the area.

More than 27,000 vehicles, 1,100 bicyclists and 1,200 pedestrians pass through Memorial Circle each day, according to figures cited in the filing.

D.C. and Virginia argue that increased congestion could impede emergency responders traveling between the District and Arlington County, which have mutual-aid agreements, and interfere with an emergency evacuation route out of Washington.

The lawsuit also points to Trump's announcement that the arch would have a military function as part of its argument that the government did not adequately assess the project's effects.

Trump announced in September that the structure would be converted into what he called a “Military Complex/Triumphal Arch” to house drones, snipers and ammunition. The complaint says the final planning documents do not address those proposed military uses.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth subsequently said in a declaration filed in the separate veterans’ case that the arch would be a “dual-purpose structure” combining a national monument with military utility.

“The arch is a generational national defense opportunity to mitigate these evolving threats,” Hegseth said.

At a hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan questioned the government's national security argument and pressed an administration lawyer on how the structure could function both as a major tourist site and as a military asset.

During Friday's hearing, Assistant Attorney General Robert Stander defended the administration's plans, describing the proposed arch as "absolutely a high-profile project" and arguing that delays would cause harm to the government. In court filings this week, senior officials argued that the arch could help defend the Washington region, citing assassination attempts against Trump.

“The arch is somehow going to deter assassination attempts on the president?” Chutkan, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, asked.

Stander said he could not provide further details about how the arch would be used for national security purposes, explaining that he and his legal team had only recently learned of the potential military role after Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin submitted declarations this week.

The judge also raised questions about the implications of keeping ammunition and drones at a heavily visited attraction near the flight path to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

“We’re not talking about plans for a cafeteria,” Chutkan said.

D.C. and Virginia now argue that those plans would create additional demands on the District's emergency preparedness. The complaint says construction cranes could reach approximately 320 feet and alleges that federal aviation review of the arch occurred before its proposed military use was announced.

D.C. and Virginia also argue that the arch would permanently alter the historic landscape surrounding Arlington National Cemetery.

The 250-foot structure would stand in Memorial Circle between Arlington Memorial Bridge and the cemetery entrance and obstruct the long-established sight line between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House, according to the lawsuit.

The NPS has acknowledged in material quoted in the complaint that the arch would occupy the center of the vista, “obstructing the reciprocal view and impairing the clarity of this sightline.” The agency also concluded that the arch would introduce a “competing illuminated vertical element” affecting the Washington Monument’s traditional visual prominence.

The lawsuit alleges that the NPS began consulting the historic preservation officers for D.C. and Virginia only after key site and design decisions had been made and later ended the consultation without adequately considering alternatives.

Virginia's Department of Historic Resources had earlier objected to an expedited federal review. In a June letter to the NPS, the department said the proposed timetable did not give it an adequate opportunity to review the project, citing the scale of the undertaking, significant historic properties in the area and the severity of potential adverse effects.

The new lawsuit comes a day after Chutkan expressed skepticism during a hearing in the separate case brought by the veterans and historic preservationist.

The plaintiffs in that case argue that the administration lacks congressional authorization for the project and that the arch would harm their experience of visiting Arlington National Cemetery.

Navy veteran Shaun Byrnes testified that he would no longer want to be buried at Arlington if the structure were built nearby.

“I don't want to be part of that,” he said.

Chutkan also questioned the administration’s timetable.

“What is the harm of waiting?” she asked. “What is the rush to put this arch up?”

Chutkan said she would rule “expeditiously” on whether construction should be halted.

Arlington County has filed a separate lawsuit challenging the arch.

In response to that lawsuit earlier this month, Ingle told Newsweek that the administration had been “fastidiously compliant with all procedural and legal requirements” and said officials were confident the case would be dismissed.

The Interior Department told Newsweek: “The Department continues to follow all laws and regulations.”

The National Capital Planning Commission is scheduled to consider final approval of the project on November 5.

The administration previously told the court that if the commission approves the arch and the Interior Department issues a final decision authorizing construction, work could begin as early as that same day.

That timetable is central to the new lawsuit. D.C. and Virginia argue that once construction begins, the administration could contend that stopping work would itself impose costs, security problems and other harms.

“As soon as Defendants break ground on this project, they will inflict irreparable harm on both the District and Virginia,” the complaint says.

The jurisdictions are asking the court to maintain the status quo at Memorial Circle while the legal dispute proceeds and to prevent federal officials from undertaking, authorizing, funding or permitting construction or site preparation.

Newsweek reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story. Learn more about Martyn here. Contact Newsweek editors for this story: Anthony Murray and Steve Mollman.