Park Service lists 37 historic sites that Trump's 250-foot arch would affect

D.C. preservation officer floats Frederick Douglass Bridge site for arch

The National Park Service has said President Trump’s proposed 250-foot arch would adversely affect 37 historic properties, releasing the finding as part of a review required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. That provision requires federal agencies to evaluate how their actions might affect historic sites and to seek ways to minimize harm.

“The significance of these properties derives not only from their individual architectural or commemorative importance, but also from their spatial, visual, symbolic, and ceremonial interrelationships,” the agency’s document says.

The arch is planned for Memorial Circle, a traffic roundabout just below Arlington National Cemetery and between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House, the former home of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. The bridge alignment the arch would sit on was designed as a coordinated composition across the Potomac, intended to physically and symbolically unite North and South, the report said.

At 250 feet, the arch would be more than twice the height of the adjacent memorial. The Park Service said dozens of historic sites would be affected, including the National Mall, the U.S. Capitol and the Washington Monument.

Opposition already includes a lawsuit brought by a group of Vietnam War veterans, who say the arch would be a visual affront and requires congressional approval. The administration has not asked Congress to authorize the structure.

The White House says Memorial Circle is a suitable location, describing the arch as a fitting addition to the monumental axis between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House and saying it would enhance the visitor experience at Arlington National Cemetery.

Greg Werkheiser of the law firm Cultural Heritage Partners, which represents clients in lawsuits against other Trump administration building projects in the capital, argued the design would draw attention mainly because of where it would stand — between Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial, towering over the surrounding city. He described the placement of an arch of that size in one of the city’s most densely built and symbolically loaded landscapes as absurd, and said opposition reflects the location rather than the design itself.

Asked about alternatives, the Interior Department declined to engage with the question, saying the arch would offer a spectacular view of Washington, D.C., from its observation deck and would itself be visible from other historic properties, adding a monumental structure to a viewshed the agency described as a barren landscape.

The review process itself has moved unusually, with the Section 106 consultation beginning only in June, after the project had already received final design approval from the first of two federal arts commissions. Edward Stierli, vice president for government affairs of the National Park Conservation Association, said the effort has lacked transparency, noting that a meeting of the parties involved has not actually taken place and that the process has the character of a box-ticking exercise rather than a genuine review. Anything in that location would always be controversial, he said, but the pure scale of one of the largest structures ever built in Washington, D.C., makes it more so.

David Maloney, D.C.’s state historic preservation officer, formally backed an alternative in a June letter: a newly created traffic oval near the Frederick Douglass Bridge, east of the Anacostia River in a predominantly non-white residential district. He argued the arch there would serve as a gateway to the city on axis with the Capitol, positioned in a landscape the letter described as a natural civic setting, and that the location would enhance the city’s monumental landscape rather than degrade it. He wrote that the goal of developing alternatives is central to what Section 106 requires.

At a July 12 meeting of the National Capital Planning Commission, the second panel to review the project, Commissioner Arrington Dixon said he was impressed by the idea of bringing something positive to the southeast part of the district. But the commission, after two hours of public comment and with many unresolved questions, voted unanimously to forward the proposal to the next stage. The commission could decide in early September whether to grant the permit, after the Section 106 review is complete.

The administration is also pursuing a broader rule change. In late July, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, whose members are mostly Trump appointees, voted to redraft Section 106 to make construction on historic properties easier. The council wants to narrow what counts as a historic district, reduce the definition of adverse effects, and cut public outreach; its new rules were opened to a 30-day federal public comment period. Legal challenges, Werkheiser said, are inevitable.

Congress could in theory halt the monument by legislation, and a sizable number of House Democrats have sponsored a bill to that effect. The chamber is controlled by a Republican majority, and the measure appears unlikely to advance.