'Arc de Trump' will tell Americans who's really in charge

For many gauging the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the end of Fourth of July festivities headlined by the president of the United States was a relief. Rather than using the nation’s bully pulpit to uplift and unify, he vilified fellow Americans with different political views as “communists,” misquoted the Declaration of Independence, trotted out aging, possibly unwitting wartime veterans as political props and unleashed a bombastic and expensive fireworks display that suggested World War III, not a national celebration.

In a predictable culmination of the Fourth in the Age of Trump, the president of the United States in his address on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., reduced veterans of World War II, Korea and Vietnam to conveniently timed bit parts while conflating their sacrifice and courage in faraway venues with his own as he voiced his determination to please his people and give his Fourth of July speech despite lightning and thunder. “If they can storm the beaches on D-Day,” he boldly told Fox News, “I can deliver a speech.”

Fearful of the approaching midterm elections and the prospect of Democrats taking over one or both houses of Congress, the Republican president repeatedly suggested that his political opponents were homefront communists seeking to take over the country. At one point, he ad-libbed recklessly, counting on either the ignorance or the easy manipulation of dulled MAGA minds in his audience: “And as our Declaration of Independence tells us, we are all made in the image of one almighty god. And a communist will never say that. That's for sure.”

Indeed, no intelligent communist would say this – nor would any red-blooded American who knew what he was talking about. The Declaration of Independence says nothing at all like this. Author Thomas Jefferson was a well-known skeptic of organized religion and a primary advocate of the separation of church and state, recognizing from history the frequent prostitution of religion in the service of tyrants. Wittingly or not, the president of the United States mined biblical text, not our nation’s foundational text, to malign, deceive and inflame.

And the MAGA crowd before him cared not a bit. They cheered in their denial, ignorance and hatred, completing the picture of America’s sad, delusional decline and fall.

Meanwhile, amid rockets’ red glare some of us wondered whether our republic would survive two and a half more years of this president, given his efforts to strike down by command parts of the Constitution he dislikes (and some Supreme Court justices’ willingness to accommodate him); armed, masked federal agents lawlessly arresting and shooting people, citizens and non-citizens alike; and possible passage of a law that would heap hardships on voters, especially if they “accidentally” get bumped off voter rolls and lack a passport or birth certificate.

“The dream of democracy is not dying – it’s really dead,” a New York Times subscriber opined in an otherwise lively online discussion among readers (including me) about films representing the American experience. “Our country always had a dirty underside, but the dirt is everywhere now. The country this movie is about is gone. We call this the United States, but this is another, starker, crueler and more corrupt country now. I will not celebrate the Fourth – my country didn’t make it to 250. This is a new country, only a few years old, and nothing to be proud of.”

Yet the Trump-styled Fourth isn’t over. There’s the matter of what his administration sometimes touts as the “Independence Arch,” which the president plans to impose on what many veterans view as sacred ground – that strategically designed stretch between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. Australian-born art critic Sebastian Smee argues in The Atlantic that the arch would further undermine the meaning of the words “honor,” “sacrifice” and “humility” which “have been leaking away from American civic life like red blood cells from an anemic.”

To quote Smee, “if there’s one place where they [those words] retain their rich, sticky, life-giving force, it’s surely in the air around the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The cemetery is where Americans remember those who sacrificed their lives for the nation. The memorial is where they remember their greatest president – the man who proclaimed an end to slavery and kept the union intact, though the cost was staggering. The air between these two places is the medium through which Lincoln gets to speak with his war dead, and vice versa.”

This is a historically and patriotically relevant insight. The arch would sit within Memorial Circle, between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, resting place of some 400,000 veterans and their families. “This 250-foot structure would permanently transform the view from the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington National Cemetery, one of the most sacred landscapes in America, where families visit fallen veterans every day,” Alexandra DeCandia wrote to a see-nothing/hear-nothing federal commission stocked with Trump appointees poised to approve his arch. “Once that view is gone, it is gone forever.”

Indeed, one simple way to gauge our democracy’s durability hinges on our nation’s war dead and those who claim to revere them. Of thousands of comments submitted by Americans this spring and summer to the National Capital Planning Commission, an AI-tabulated 99 percent condemned the president’s “triumphal arch” as an affront to the city’s meticulously planned and placed monuments. One argued that “allowing the current administration to continue to build lawlessly, selfishly and haphazardly is against our democratic principles and what the vast majority of Americans want.”

Nor has the president exactly helped validate his arch, modeled after Paris’ Arc de Triomphe. During an Oct. 15, 2025, Oval Office press conference, when a reporter examining a model of the arch asked who it was for, the president replied: “Me.” The remark was not forgotten, especially after other presidential appointees targeted the district’s performing arts center, dedicated by federal statute to the memory of the late President Kennedy; they renamed the place the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.

It took the federal judiciary to order on May 29 that Trump’s name be promptly removed with District Judge Christopher Cooper reminding the president that “Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name and only Congress can change it.” Which is no doubt why the president doesn’t want Congress trifling with his erection of a gargantuan, kitsch-endowed, European-styled, humble-yourselves, imperial arch near a cemetery abundantly populated by Americans who served and in some cases perished for a constitutionally run democratic we-the-people republic.

Beyond an offhand remark that the arch would honor himself, the president has supported the monument because, to quote him, Washington, D.C., is “the only important and major city that doesn't have one.” Yet the Arc de Triomphe honoring the fighting French soldiers of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars was commissioned in 1806 by self-crowned, self-important French Emperor Napoleon I; Rome's Arch of Titus, which in turn influenced the Paris arch, sought deification of late Roman Emperor Titus. Question: Is there a pattern here?

If the president's administration is sincere in claiming that the arch is a tribute to the nation on its 250th anniversary, and not the president, it by now faces an uphill battle to convince Americans otherwise – not just because of the president's notorious narcissism in seeking for himself honors and tributes galore – including his failed attempt to have Dulles International Airport renamed in his honor – but a clear authoritarian style of governance. Retired historic preservation architect Susan Turner noted as much in her own comments submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission on June 27:

As inappropriate as the design and physicality of this monument is, its symbolism seems somehow more troubling. It is said that it will be built to commemorate 250 years of American independence by honoring America’s founding principles. However, those very founding principles are now under attack by the government administration that proposes to build the arch. Sadly, we are in a time where we have little to celebrate, being led by an administration that has been actively working to destroy everything positive and honorable about our nation.

At home, the executive branch is undermining the rule of law, fouling civil discourse, violating public trust, destroying the effectiveness, integrity and expertise of our institutions and corruptly enriching themselves in the process. All while the legislative branch enables this national destruction.

Abroad, the administration is failing the responsibilities that come with wealth and power, abandoning our alliances and undermining our dependability, leadership and moral authority. Just like at home, the administration destroys the trust that undergirds the values and relationships that make us strong. All the while, they are replacing every positive aspect of our national identity with immoral and illegal aggression.

There is no triumph in the behavior of the United States of America under the Trump administration, only national shame. It is exceedingly inappropriate to surrender our values and principles and then build a monument to triumph. It seems an Orwellian attempt to project triumph when the reality is complete failure.

While the president’s men have largely settled on the claim the arch marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, doubts understandably remain. East Texas native and former diplomat Charles Ray, 81, a decorated Army veteran of 20 years’ service, including two tours in Vietnam, argued in comments formally submitted May 27 to the commission that the arch “is a garish tribute to one man's vanity and has no place in a democracy of, by and for the People. If you have a scintilla of love and respect for this country and the people whose blood has kept it free for 250 years, you will disapprove this vanity project.”

“This design is ugly, it is grandiose, it is unoriginal and it just gets in the way,” Fran Bowman wrote. “What is it a monument [to] other than the failed Trump presidency? The survival of our republic for 250 years is enough of a monument for me.” Of what she labeled “a monstrous vanity project to please Trump,” Jane Allison added: “He is destroying the beautiful city of Washington, D.C., with monuments to himself. The people used to have a say in this. Trump doesn't get to spend taxpayer money and junk up the city any way he wants.”

“No one should have to experience the desecration of their loved one's grave in such a heinous fashion,” Nancy Bailey Stone wrote. “When my parents were buried at Arlington, I had the consolation that, in perpetuity, their burial place would be one of care and a place where others would find solace. The homage to a man who received multiple deferrals from serving during the war in Vietnam is a disgrace to the men and women in the armed forces who are buried at Arlington. He has no respect for them on any level.”

And Candace Shy Hooper, whose parents are buried in Arlington National Cemetery, fears the arch if built will “shatter the calm, quiet atmosphere of Arlington Cemetery.” She too ponders what it actually commemorates: “It is not needed to celebrate or commemorate any of this country's triumphs – there are monuments to all the wars in Washington and throughout the nation. And it is utterly foreign to the memory of the men and women buried there who fought in those wars because of their dedication to our founding principles, not for posthumous glory.”

Others wondered why the president wasn’t focused on the pressing issues that won him the presidency in 2024. “Last and not least,” former D.C. resident Carolyn Lewis wrote, “Americans are struggling to put food on the table, find affordable healthcare and housing and find employment that provides a living wage. Time and attention should instead be put towards the American public. To spend such resources on a monumental [arch] is a disservice to the ideals that members of the military who now lay at rest in Arlington Cemetery fought for.”

Of several files bursting with submitted written comments, I found only three favoring the triumphal arch. One I encountered in perusing comments myself, another was cited by a fellow journalist in his search; both were brief, perfunctory, hardly convincing. A third – submitted by a California architect named Shady Migally – included a lengthy outline supporting the idea of the arch but proposing his own design, including a calibrated annual solar alignment device: "Each year on July 4th, at solar noon, a beam of sunlight passes through a carefully designed oculus in the monument roof and illuminates a circular stone datum embedded in the ground below, inscribed with words from the Declaration of Independence."

A lawsuit filed by three Vietnam veterans and an architectural historian challenges efforts by the president’s men to bypass the usual congressional approval process: “Although members of the public will undoubtedly hold diverse views about whether, where and how a commemorative arch should be built, the statutorily required procedure is designed to take account of those views through the participation of Congress. Requiring defendants to follow that procedure, then, redounds to the benefit of all Americans, whether or not they share plaintiffs’ concerns.”

The litigants also note in legal filings that “[f]rom the city’s inception as a purpose-built capital, careful attention was given to the aesthetic and symbolic significance of the configuration of buildings and landmarks within the city’s core.” They argue that “construction of the planned arch in Memorial Circle has no foundation in a grant of statutory authority. And without congressional authorization, it would transgress specific prohibitions in the Commemorative Works Act.”

The four cite the grand urban design of Pierre Charles L’Enfant, the artist, engineer and former military officer commissioned by President Washington to design the new capital. In his designs, L’Enfant “strove to embody American ideals, including the principle that ‘every citizen was equally important.’ Notably, ‘instead of reserving the grandest spot for the leader’s palace as was customary in Europe,’ L’Enfant’s plan centered the city on Congress, placing it ‘on a high point with a commanding view of the Potomac.’”

All of which is lost on a president ignorant or dismissive of history, let alone the democratic and spatial genius in L’Enfant’s design of the “Federal City.” I spent a broiling summer day in 2009 hiking among the D.C. monuments and memorials, drawing patriotic inspiration from how most related to one another, the result of respectful lawmakers and designers building on L’Enfant’s concepts through the ages. The only significant outlier seemed the Jefferson Memorial, but, given Jefferson’s sometimes shocking (to this day) beliefs, that too seemed fitting.

Would the triumphal arch fit into all this deliberative D.C. planning? Maybe, but not amid the peaceful, contemplative air of Arlington National Cemetery – and hardly on the impulse of a man who, as of July 23, boasted we'd lost only 18 lives in a "skirmish" against Iran and who himself repeatedly dodged the draft. Nor did his regime help matters by lowering the official death toll from 18 to 14, excluding four U.S. soldiers killed after "Trump declared an April ceasefire." Sensitive to casualties on his watch, Trump touted the toll as “18 in two wars.”  

Furthermore, the arch's stated purpose is “to celebrate the triumphs of the American people, inspire patriotism and beautify the nation’s capital,” yet the president's July rants in which he slanders millions of Americans who disagree with him politically as “communists” cast doubt on such motives. What’s more, during a July 22 rally in Georgia, he argued that American greatness was assured only so long as he endures: "Ladies and gentlemen of Georgia, the golden age of America is upon us. We're in the golden age. This is the greatest we'll ever be." 

The veterans’ lawsuit also notes the work of architects and urban planners on the famed McMillan Commission, charged in 1901 with updating the capital’s monumental core in line with L’Enfant’s vision. This included not only a magnificent monument to President Lincoln to serve as the western anchor along a major east-west vista that included the Washington Monument and the Capitol but also a bridge connecting the base of the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington National Cemetery – a founding vision imperiled by advocates of Arc de Trump.

The president’s attorneys counter that Congress authorized construction of large structures on Columbia Island – site of Memorial Circle before one enters the cemetery – in the 1920s, along with authority to modify planners’ original designs. The proposed arch is merely a continuation of a more modest project that was never completed. The Commemorative Works Act, they argue – “if applicable at all – merely requires ‘express authority of Congress’ to build structures. That authority has already been given to build large structures on Columbia Island.”

Except that the sketches approved a century ago by Congress envision nothing as overwhelming or obtrusive as a 250-foot arch overshadowing Arlington National Cemetery. The original plans propose placing two ornamental columns to frame the view of the Lincoln Memorial, the latter completed in 1922. The president’s arch would hinder that view. Consequently, the Report of the Arlington Memorial Bridge Commission of 1924 calls for two 166-foot-tall columns to be placed about 300 feet apart.

“Arlington [National Cemetery] is not a backdrop, a branding opportunity or a place for self-glorification,” New Hampshire tourism guide Meg Cowan told the National Capital Planning Commission at its July 9 meeting. “To impose this arch there would be, in my opinion, a desecration of the memory of our war dead. A 250-foot occupied arch with elevators, ticketing, restrooms, programming space and an observation deck would create a spectacle and a pressure point in a place that demands restraint. This project would not honor that landscape. It would desecrate it.”

Cowan added: “I have worked in New Hampshire tourism for more than 40 years, including as a tour guide in the White Mountain National Forest. I know what happens when a place becomes a required stop: Buses arrive, crowds gather, traffic backs up, trash appears, restrooms and walkways are strained and the place itself starts serving the attraction instead of the other way around. That may be manageable in a large recreation area designed for visitors. It is entirely wrong for the solemn civic and commemorative landscape near Arlington National Cemetery and the nation’s memorial core.”

Yet despite overwhelming spoken and written testimony opposing the arch, the National Capital Planning Commission – chaired by White House staff secretary Will Scharf and stocked with the president’s “yes men” – ignored pleas for congressional authorization and voted preliminary approval on July 9. Thus we witness the MAGA Deep State at work, leapfrogging the rule of law and ignoring constitutional checks and balances to please an 80-year-old imperial president who demands a monument without legislative or legal scrutiny.

Since then, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation – another group stocked with Trump appointees – has moved to nix a legal hurdle in the National Historic Preservation Act and thus greatly expedite arch construction. With the National Capital Planning Commission’s final approval all but assured in September and Congress effectively AWOL, only three Vietnam veterans and a historian block what, on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, increasingly seems a regal display of what the signers resolved to fight in 1776.

“With legal challenges already mounting, immense public pushback and the bypassing of traditional congressional approvals, this arch is on a path to becoming a protracted, multi-year, bureaucratic blunder,” Jennifer Ross, an Air Force veteran of 20 years’ service, wrote to the aloof commission on June 29. “The National Mall and its surrounding gateways should not become a construction site for an unstable political symbol that divides the country rather than uniting it. Our nation’s capital belongs to the people, and its monuments should reflect our highest ideals: humility, sacrifice and democracy. This arch honors none of these. To look toward Arlington Cemetery through the legs of a gaudy, unearned monument to individual ego is a profound dishonor to those who gave everything for this country.”

I’d say it’s more than that. If the Arc de Trump survives efforts to halt its construction in that mystic stretch between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, one can be sure many will one day view it as commemorating the Make America Great Again movement, including its subversion of the legislative branch in ways that our founders never imagined; the ideological corruption of our highest jurists; and, to quote Edward Gibbon in 1776 in a classic postmortem of another failed republic, the passing from the people of “that public courage which is nourished by the love of independence, the sense of national honor, the presence of danger and the habit of command.”

Bill Whitaker spent 45 years as a reporter, editor and columnist in Texas journalism, including a dozen years as Waco Tribune-Herald opinion editor.