Last updated 1 day ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
President Donald Trump has unveiled plans for a grand triumphal arch in Washington, D.C. Officially called the “Independence Arch” but quickly nicknamed the “Arc de Trump,” the project would link the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington National Cemetery. The monument aims to commemorate the 250th anniversary of American independence.
The proposal involves presidential legacy-building, unprecedented private financing from corporate donors, and potential conflicts with century-old laws designed to protect the capital’s commemorative landscape. The key questions: What is being proposed? How will it be paid for? And what legal hurdles stand in the way?
The Proposal
The “Independence Arch” is the centerpiece of a broader second-term effort by the Trump administration to reshape the capital’s architecture. From gilded White House renovations to this potential landmark, the projects reflect Trump’s real estate background and interest in how buildings project image and build legacy.
The Unveiling
The project was revealed on October 15, 2025, at an exclusive, candlelit dinner in the White House East Room. The event thanked nearly 130 major donors who had contributed to a separate project: a new $250 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the White House grounds.
During the dinner, President Trump displayed renderings and 3D models of the proposed arch in three sizes – small, medium, and large. “This would be small, medium, and large,” Trump told the assembled donors. “I happen to think the large by far looks the best.”
Initial reports in early October 2025 from anonymous White House sources described the arch as a temporary structure intended only for the America250 celebration. By the October 15 dinner, the administration confirmed the arch was being discussed as a permanent addition. This evolution in the proposal allowed the administration to gauge reaction before committing to a permanent monument.
Purpose and Symbolism
Officially, the arch would commemorate the 250th anniversary of American independence, celebrated in 2026. Trump has described it as a monumental “gateway to Washington, D.C.” designed to welcome visitors and symbolize national strength, unity, and progress. He’s called it a celebration of America’s founding and a symbol of what he calls a “rebirth of American pride.”
A more personal motivation emerged in a candid exchange. Before the donor dinner, a model of the arch was spotted on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. When CBS reporter Ed O’Keefe asked Trump who the arch was for, the president replied simply, “Me. It’s going to be beautiful.” O’Keefe’s subsequent suggestion of the name “Arc de Trump” was quickly adopted by media and the public.
The project has generated controversy because it simultaneously serves as both a monument to the nation and, by the president’s own admission, a monument to himself. This blending of public commemoration with personal branding has become the primary source of debate.
Design and Architect
The design is explicitly modeled on Paris’s Arc de Triomphe, a neoclassical triumphal arch commissioned by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1806 to commemorate his military victories. Renderings depict a classical stone structure with columns, eagles, and wreaths. Models show the arch topped with a prominent statue, described in various reports as either a gilded angel or a figure of Lady Liberty.
While no designer has been officially named by the White House, the project is closely associated with architect Nicolas Leo Charbonneau, a partner at Harrison Design. On September 4, 2025, Charbonneau posted a watercolor rendering of the proposed arch on social media with the caption, “America needs a triumphal arch!” Trump later shared this image on his Truth Social platform.
According to a senior White House official, the arch was Trump’s idea, and “He came up with the design and has been part of the process every step of the way.”
Location
The arch is planned for Memorial Circle, a large, grassy roundabout at the western end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, located in the District of Columbia near the Virginia border. This is a highly symbolic and visually prominent location, sitting directly on the axis that connects the Lincoln Memorial with Arlington National Cemetery.
In his remarks to donors, Trump noted this site has long been considered for a monument. “Every time somebody rides over that beautiful bridge to the Lincoln Memorial, they literally say something is supposed to be here,” he said, adding that “Everyone in the past had said something was supposed to be built there. But a thing called the Civil War interfered.” Historical proposals for a monument at this location date back to the 19th century.
Broader Architectural Changes
The “Independence Arch” is not isolated. It’s the most ambitious piece of a wider campaign to reshape White House and capital aesthetics. Other initiatives include:
The White House Ballroom: A $250 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom currently under construction on the White House grounds.
Gilded Renovations: The Oval Office and Cabinet Room have been redecorated with gold trim, gold-colored chairs, and ornate portrait frames, a style some compare to Mar-a-Lago.
The Rose Garden: The historic garden was paved over to create a patio space with picnic tables and umbrellas.
“Presidential Walk of Fame”: A new gallery along the West Wing colonnade featuring gold-framed portraits of all U.S. presidents.
This architectural agenda is guided by an executive order signed in August 2025, titled “Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again,” which promotes classical and traditional styles for new federal buildings. The arch represents the ultimate expression of this preference.
The Funding
The financing plan for the “Independence Arch” raises ethical questions, as it relies entirely on private and corporate funding rather than federal appropriations. The project’s financial viability is tied to fundraising success of another major White House initiative.
The Ballroom Connection
The arch is not being directly funded through its own fundraising campaign. Instead, Trump has repeatedly stated that “leftover funds” from the privately financed, $250 million White House ballroom project will pay for it. At the October 15 donor dinner, Trump announced the ballroom project was “fully financed” with a surplus of funds. He explicitly told donors this excess money would be used for the arch.
This arrangement makes the ballroom project a fundraising vehicle for broader architectural ambitions. The White House has characterized the ballroom as a nonpartisan improvement that will benefit future administrations, potentially making it more palatable for corporate donors wary of political blowback.
The rapid fundraising success and discussion of a surplus suggest that organizers raised more capital than needed for the ballroom alone. Once collected by the designated nonprofit, these surplus funds become a discretionary pool that can be redirected to other projects like the arch.
The Fundraising Mechanism
Donations for the ballroom project are being accepted and managed by the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit organization that partners with the National Park Service. As a nonprofit, the Trust is generally not required to disclose its donors, and contributions are often tax-deductible. This contrasts with strict disclosure rules governing traditional corporate lobbying expenditures or campaign donations, creating a channel for financial support largely shielded from public scrutiny.
The list of companies and individuals who have either donated or attended fundraising events includes many corporate entities with substantial business before the federal government.
Known Donors and Supporters of the White House Ballroom Project:
| Donor Name |
|---|
| Google (Alphabet) |
| Lockheed Martin |
| Palantir Technologies |
| Booz Allen Hamilton |
| NextEra Energy |
| R.J. Reynolds |
| Amazon |
| Apple |
| Meta Platforms |
| Microsoft |
| Coinbase |
| Comcast |
| T-Mobile |
| Stephen A. Schwarzman |
| Tyler & Cameron Winklevoss |
| Harold Hamm |
| Adelson Family Foundation |
Ethical Concerns
This fundraising model has drawn criticism from government ethics experts, who say it creates an opaque system for corporate influence operating outside established legal channels. Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis specializing in government ethics, noted that while the money may not go directly into the president’s pocket, “it’s absolutely to benefit Trump personally because it’s important to him.”
The presence of major defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Palantir, and tech giants like Google and Amazon who face regulatory oversight, has fueled concerns that these donations may be a way to curry favor and gain access. For many of these companies, this represents a shift from four years prior, when they had distanced themselves from Trump after the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The ballroom project, and by extension the arch, provides a new avenue for corporate America to support a president who holds significant power over their business interests.
Legal Hurdles
Despite presidential enthusiasm and available private funding, the path to constructing a permanent monument in Washington, D.C., faces significant legal and bureaucratic challenges. The process is deliberately slow, public, and complex, designed to ensure the nation’s capital is developed with careful consideration and broad consensus. The “Independence Arch” proposal may conflict with this established system.
The Commemorative Works Act
Enacted in 1986, the Commemorative Works Act (CWA), codified at 40 U.S.C. §§8901-8909, is the primary statute governing authorization, siting, and design of memorials on federal land in Washington, D.C. The law was created to establish a rigorous and orderly process, preventing the capital from being cluttered with monuments and ensuring new additions are of lasting national significance. It sets up a sequential review process involving multiple federal agencies and commissions, none of which can be bypassed by executive authority alone.
The Trump administration’s approach differs from this procedure. White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf, who also leads the National Capital Planning Commission, has maintained that “presidential projects do not require external approval.” This claim represents a potential conflict between executive authority and legislative procedure.
The Multi-Agency Process
Under the CWA, a proposal for a new monument must navigate multiple independent bodies with authority over the project’s site and design.
Key Agencies in the D.C. Monument Approval Process:
| Agency |
|---|
| U.S. Congress |
| National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) |
| National Park Service (NPS) / General Services Administration (GSA) |
| Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) |
| National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) |
The Process
The journey from idea to dedicated monument is meticulous and often decade-long, outlined in a 24-step guide by the National Capital Planning Commission. Key phases include:
Legislation: A sponsor group must first work with a member of Congress to draft and pass a bill that authorizes the memorial and designates the sponsor. This bill must conform to the CWA.
Site Selection: After the law is signed, the sponsor works with the National Park Service or General Services Administration to identify potential sites. This involves extensive studies, environmental analysis, and consultation with the NCMAC. The preferred site must then be formally approved by both the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission.
Design Approval: Only after a site has been fully approved can the design process begin. The sponsor selects a designer and develops a concept. This design must go through multiple, sequential stages of review and approval – typically “concept” and “final” stages at the CFA, and “preliminary” and “final” stages at the NCPC. Both commissions must approve the final design.
Fundraising and Construction: The CWA requires the sponsor to raise 100% of estimated construction costs plus an additional 10% to be deposited into an endowment for future maintenance. Only after this financial requirement is met can the NPS or GSA issue a construction permit.
The “Area I” Challenge
The proposed location at Memorial Circle presents the highest possible regulatory hurdle. The site is within or directly adjacent to “Area I,” a specially designated zone that includes the National Mall and its immediate surroundings. In 2003, Congress declared the core of the National Mall a “completed work of civic art” and established “the Reserve,” an area within Area I where no new memorials can be placed.
To build a monument in Area I, the CWA mandates a special two-step process. First, the sponsor must request that the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission evaluate the subject. The NCMAC must conclude that the subject is of “preeminent and lasting historical significance to the history of the United States.” Second, if the NCMAC makes such a recommendation, Congress must then pass a separate, specific law authorizing the Area I site.
This makes the choice of location legally significant. While the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding could arguably meet the “preeminent significance” standard, the project’s close personal association with Trump may complicate securing necessary bipartisan support in Congress for an Area I authorization.
This leaves the administration facing a strategic choice: attempt the lengthy CWA process, lobby Congress for a legislative exemption to bypass the process entirely, or proceed by claiming executive authority, potentially triggering a legal challenge over the CWA’s applicability.
The Debate
The proposal has ignited public debate, sparking strong reactions from architects, politicians, and the public. The arguments reveal disagreement over aesthetics, the purpose of monumental architecture in the capital, and the meaning of the space the arch would occupy.
Arguments in Support
Supporters argue the arch would be a fitting addition to Washington’s commemorative landscape.
Filling a void: Proponents contend that Memorial Circle is currently an “underutilized” traffic circle that is aesthetically incomplete. Architectural critic Catesby Leigh, who first proposed an arch for the location, has written about the need to fill the space between the Arlington Memorial Bridge and Arlington National Cemetery. Duncan Stroik, an architectural professor at the University of Notre Dame, described the circle as a location that “could have something in the middle of it that would be very noteworthy – and it should be beautiful.”
A landmark for the capital: Supporters note that “Washington is the only major Western capital without a monumental arch.” They see the project as an opportunity to add a globally recognized architectural form to the city, one that is a “time-honored tradition for celebrating events and people and ideas.” Paul Dans, a former Trump appointee to the NCPC, stated that an arch “speaks of courage, of going through to new horizons” and “can mark a triumph and also be a passage to the future.”
Patriotic commemoration: The arch is framed as a grand tribute to America’s 250th anniversary. Supporters argue it would be “architecture for the masses” that is both “architecturally sophisticated” and able to “speak to everyone.”
Arguments in Opposition
Critics have raised objections ranging from the symbolic and aesthetic to the political and philosophical.
Disruption of a sacred axis: A primary objection is that a massive arch would disrupt the carefully planned visual and symbolic axis connecting the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. Architect and former educator Eric Jenkins argues that the Arlington Memorial Bridge was designed to unite these two sites. “Inserting a grand, false monument into that axis and space breaks that symbolism,” Jenkins stated. “It risks replacing subtlety with spectacle, solemnity with show. Instead of healing, it imposes.”
Critics also worry the structure would obscure the view of the John F. Kennedy Eternal Flame, which is visible from the Lincoln Memorial at night. For opponents, the empty space is not a void but a deliberate and meaningful connection between a monument to the nation’s 16th president and the final resting place of its service members.
A vanity project: The project is seen by many critics as a monument to Trump’s ego, a perception reinforced by his “Me” comment and the “Arc de Trump” moniker. Commentators have labeled the idea a “gold-plated rococo nightmare” that reflects the president’s personal aesthetic rather than a style befitting a solemn national monument.
Misplaced priorities: Some political opponents have questioned the focus on opulent architectural projects amid other national issues. California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, criticized the president for focusing on a “lavish ballroom” while other needs go unaddressed.
Authoritarian aesthetics: The push for a singular, monumental classical style for federal architecture has drawn criticism from those who argue it is anti-democratic. U.S. Congresswoman Dina Titus stated that such mandates are “what dictators do.” Some online commentators have drawn comparisons between the proposed arch’s grandiose style and the designs of Nazi-era architect Albert Speer. These critics suggest the administration’s architectural policy promotes a specific, monolithic, and triumphalist vision of the nation.
Historical Context
Debate over new monuments in Washington, D.C., is not unusual. The creation of the capital’s most revered monuments has often been contentious, reflecting the political passions and aesthetic arguments of each era.
The Triumphal Arch in History
The triumphal arch is an architectural form with a long and potent history. Created by the ancient Romans, these free-standing arches were not gates but ceremonial structures built to commemorate victorious generals and significant public events. Adorned with sculptures and inscriptions detailing military achievements, they served as propaganda, constant visual reminders of Roman power and glory.
This tradition was revived by rulers like Napoleon Bonaparte, whose Arc de Triomphe in Paris was commissioned in 1806 to honor the armies of the French Revolution and his own imperial victories. The choice of this form for a new American monument invokes a historical style associated with imperial power and military triumph.
The Lincoln Memorial
Today, the Lincoln Memorial is one of the nation’s most beloved civic spaces, but its creation was controversial. When the design was proposed in the early 20th century, many critics felt that architect Henry Bacon’s grand Greek temple was “far too ostentatious for a man of Lincoln’s humble character.” Opponents argued for a more modest design.
There was also disagreement over the proposed location. The Commission of Fine Arts supported the site at the western end of the National Mall, but the Lincoln Memorial Commission initially opposed it, arguing that the area, recently reclaimed land from the Potomac River, “could never be made adequately beautiful.” The eventual approval of the site and design came only after prolonged debate between the two commissions.
The Jefferson Memorial
The construction of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in the 1930s and 1940s was even more contentious, sparking public outcry dubbed the “Cherry Tree Rebellion.” The project faced criticism on multiple fronts: its high cost during the Great Depression, the direct selection of architect John Russell Pope without a public competition, and most famously, its location on the Tidal Basin, which required removing dozens of cherished Japanese cherry trees.
The threat to the cherry trees prompted public opposition, led by newspaper publisher Eleanor “Cissy” Patterson. In November 1938, approximately 150 protesters marched on the construction site, wrestled shovels away from workers, and symbolically chained themselves to the trees to prevent their removal. The protest ultimately failed, but it stands as an example of the public passion that monument-building can ignite.
Beyond construction, the memorial has faced criticism for the inscriptions on its walls, which have been criticized for decontextualizing Jefferson’s writings, arguably to align his legacy with President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s political agenda.
Evolving Meanings
These historical examples demonstrate that monument controversies have long been part of American democracy. Public debate over how we use shared civic spaces to define national memory is a long-standing tradition. The debate over the “Arc de Trump” is simply the latest chapter.
The history of these monuments shows that their meaning is not fixed by their creators but defined and redefined by future generations. The Lincoln Memorial, dedicated at a ceremony with segregated seating for Black guests, was transformed decades later into the nation’s foremost stage for the Civil Rights Movement, hosting Marian Anderson’s historic 1939 concert and Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963. Its meaning evolved from a symbol of post-war reunification to a symbol of the ongoing struggle for equality.
This historical lesson applies to the “Independence Arch.” If built, its intended meaning – whether of a national anniversary, a personal legacy, or a classical revival – will only be the first draft of its story. Future events and social movements will ultimately determine its place in the American consciousness.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
Summary of Changes:
The article was largely factual and well-researched. My edits focused on:
- Neutralizing partisan language: Removed phrases like “powerful and opaque system,” “dramatic shift,” “please a president,” and other language suggesting impropriety
- Clarifying complex passages: Simplified bureaucratic and legal terminology for better readability
- Fact-checking: Corrected the location description (Memorial Circle is in DC, not “on the Virginia side” as originally stated)
- Removing speculation: Changed phrases suggesting deliberate manipulation to more neutral descriptions of events
- Improving clarity: Made dense legal and procedural sections easier to understand without sacrificing accuracy
The Lincoln Memorial
Today, the Lincoln Memorial is one of the nation’s most beloved civic spaces, but its creation was fraught with conflict. When the design was proposed in the early 20th century, many critics felt that architect Henry Bacon’s grand Greek temple was “far too ostentatious for a man of Lincoln’s humble character.” Opponents argued for a more modest “simple log cabin shrine.”
There was also a major battle over the proposed location. The Commission of Fine Arts championed the site at the western end of the National Mall, but the Lincoln Memorial Commission initially opposed it, arguing that the area, recently reclaimed swamp land from the Potomac River, “could never be made adequately beautiful.” The eventual approval of the site and design came only after prolonged disagreement between the two powerful commissions.
The Jefferson Memorial
The construction of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in the 1930s and 1940s was even more contentious, sparking a public outcry known as the “Cherry Tree Rebellion.” The project faced criticism on multiple fronts: its high cost during the Great Depression, the direct selection of architect John Russell Pope without a public competition, and most famously, its location on the Tidal Basin, which required removing dozens of cherished Japanese cherry trees.
The threat to the cherry trees galvanized public opposition, led by powerful newspaper publisher Eleanor “Cissy” Patterson. In November 1938, approximately 150 female protestors marched on the construction site, wrestled shovels away from workers, and symbolically chained themselves to the trees to prevent their removal. The protest ultimately failed, but it stands as a vivid example of the public passion that monument-building can ignite.
Beyond construction, the memorial has faced criticism for the inscriptions on its walls, which have been shown to decontextualize and misquote Jefferson’s writings, arguably to align his legacy with President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s political agenda.
Evolving Meanings
These historical examples demonstrate that monument controversies are a feature of American democracy. Publicly and passionately arguing over how we use shared civic spaces to define national memory is a long-standing tradition. The debate over the “Arc de Trump” is simply the latest chapter.
The history of these monuments shows that their meaning is not fixed by their creators but defined and redefined by future generations. The Lincoln Memorial, dedicated at a ceremony with segregated seating for Black guests, was transformed decades later into the nation’s foremost stage for the Civil Rights Movement, hosting Marian Anderson’s historic 1939 concert and Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963. Its meaning evolved from a symbol of post-war reunification to a powerful symbol of the ongoing struggle for equality.
This historical lesson applies to the “Independence Arch.” If built, its intended meaning – whether of a national anniversary, a personal triumph, or a classical revival – will only be the first draft of its story. Future events and social movements will ultimately determine its place in the American consciousness.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
