Lawmakers caution Burgum, NPS they have “no power to build” Trump’s arch
Lawmakers caution Burgum NPS they have – On Monday, six legislators delivered a formal communication to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Acting Director of the National Park Service (NPS) Jessica Bowron, and another federal official, emphasizing that the agency lacks the authority to construct a triumphal arch honoring former President Donald Trump without explicit congressional approval. The lawmakers argue that the proposed structure violates key federal laws, challenging the Trump administration’s claim of executive power in the matter.
Opposition Based on Legal Grounds
The group of lawmakers, which includes independent Senator Angus King from Maine, Democratic Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, and Democratic Representative Jeff Merkley of Oregon, along with representatives Jared Huffman from California, Maxine Dexter from Oregon, and Yaasmin Ansari from Arizona, expressed firm opposition to the project. They highlighted that the National Park Service (NPS) is proceeding with a plan that Congress has not endorsed, stating that the initiative contravenes two federal statutes.
“We oppose this project in the strongest terms and object to the execution of the draft Programmatic Agreement. The NPS is assessing the effects of an undertaking that Congress has never authorized and that two federal statutes squarely prohibit,” the lawmakers wrote.
They pointed out that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which mandates consultation with preservation experts, cannot grant the necessary legal authority to construct the arch. Furthermore, they noted that no programmatic agreement can mitigate the adverse effects of a project the NPS has no power to initiate.
Legal Framework and Concerns
The lawmakers’ concerns stem from the Height of Buildings Act and the Commemorative Works Act. They assert that the arch’s current dimensions would exceed the vertical limits established by the Height of Buildings Act, which governs the height of structures in the nation’s capital. Additionally, the Commemorative Works Act requires congressional approval for any new monuments or structures on federal land, a provision the lawmakers say has been ignored in this case.
“A departure of this magnitude from the capital’s settled vertical order is precisely the kind of decision the law reserves to Congress,” the lawmakers wrote.
They also warned that the arch would disrupt a historically significant sightline, damaging the visual harmony of the area. This perspective is supported by the fact that the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery are key landmarks in Washington, D.C., and the arch’s placement near them could alter the aesthetic and symbolic landscape of the nation’s capital.
Lawmakers’ Joint Effort and External Opposition
The opposition to the arch has not only come from within the legislative branch but also from external groups. Vietnam War veterans have filed a lawsuit, contesting the project on similar grounds as the lawmakers. Their argument centers on the legality of the arch’s construction, claiming it undermines established federal guidelines and compromises the integrity of the capital’s skyline.
In a separate move, two Democratic members of the House of Representatives introduced a bill aimed at halting the project. The legislation seeks to block the Trump administration’s efforts to erect the arch between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, a location they believe is symbolic and historically significant.
Commission Approval and Administrative Defense
Despite the lawmakers’ warnings, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts recently approved a revised design for the arch. The modified plan places the structure in Memorial Circle on Columbia Island, a location the commission deemed more appropriate for the monument. However, this approval does not resolve the legal debate, as the lawmakers argue that the commission’s endorsement is still insufficient without congressional backing.
The Trump administration has defended the project, asserting that structures on land managed by the Interior Department are exempt from congressional approval. A spokesperson for the department stated, “In America’s 250th year, President Trump wants to fulfill this vision and build the Triumphal Arch to celebrate the triumphs of the American people, inspire patriotism and love of country, and beautify our nation’s capital.”
“The arch will also enhance the visitor experience at 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,” the spokesperson added.
While the administration frames the arch as a tribute to national unity and historical legacy, the lawmakers contend that the project’s legal foundation is shaky. Their Monday letter underscores that the NPS has not secured the required legislative authority, leaving the project in a precarious position. The letter serves as a warning to the White House and the contractors involved, stressing that the lack of approval from Congress could lead to significant legal challenges.
“No valid authority has been conferred here. Every official who directs this work, and every firm that performs it, proceeds at their own peril,” the lawmakers concluded in their communication. This statement highlights their belief that the project is not only legally unsound but also a potential misstep in the administration’s efforts to commemorate American history.
The controversy surrounding the arch reflects broader debates about executive power and the role of Congress in shaping national monuments. The lawmakers’ argument draws parallels to historical precedents, such as the Continental Congress’s approval of the first equestrian statue of George Washington in 1783, which set a precedent for congressional oversight of commemorative projects. By invoking this tradition, they argue that the current project should follow the same process to ensure legitimacy.
As the debate continues, the triumphal arch remains a focal point of contention. While the administration has moved forward with its plans, the legal and aesthetic objections from lawmakers and veterans suggest that the project may face prolonged scrutiny. The outcome of this dispute could influence future decisions on the construction of monuments and memorials, reinforcing the importance of congressional approval in preserving the nation’s symbolic landscape.
