Monument Razzle Dazzle

The air of inevitability and outrunning the judicial process have been a hallmark of the administration’s approach to its controversial pet projects in the nation’s capital. So far, that strategy and bravado have paid off with the White House ballroom; recently, the Supreme Court, ruling on procedural grounds, allowed the project to continue, though Chief Justice John Roberts noted that it was “likely unlawful.”

Perhaps hoping to demonstrate similar momentum, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum at about 3:00PM on Thursday, September 3 boasted on X:

Image

The 250-foot-tall Monumental Arch, first called Independence Arch, and now “the Great Triumphal Arch and Military Observation Deck at Memorial Circle … between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery” would be the second largest monument in the city after the Washington Monument. It would permanently disrupt the visual and symbolic views along Arlington Memorial Bridge between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery and Arlington House. The ensemble was meant to heal the rift between the North and South created by the Civil War. The views to and from the Eternal Flame and the John F. Kennedy gravesite would also be permanently altered.  

Burgum followed up his initial announcement with a succession of five additional Manifest Destiny-adjacent posts suggesting that building the arch fulfilled some historic design intent. And he opaquely noted the lack of an arch hurt national pride: “Over 70 major cities/capitals around the world, from London, Paris and Rome to Madrid, Athens and New Delhi, all showcase beautiful arches. Interestingly, Washington, DC, is the only major Western capital without an arch.”

Image

The media coverage was global. The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF) reached out to the National Park Service’s (NPS) Associate Regional Director - Lands and Planning, at 9:04 AM ET on Friday, September 4, asking for clarification about the Secretary’s remarks; TCLF received no response. For the 24-hour-period following Burgum’s postings, imminent construction news dominated the headlines.  On Friday at approximately 2:00PM plaintiffs in the ongoing Arch lawsuit filed for a temporary restraining order.  Two hours later the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion saying the work, an archaeological investigation, had been previously announced and was legally required: “None of the foregoing investigatory activities constitutes ‘construction, or demolition in preparation for construction, of an arch.’”

That clarification was little noticed on the Friday afternoon before the Labor Day Weekend.

In a classic “blame the victim” move, a week later the DOJ filed a motion chastising the plaintiffs saying: “Plaintiffs misconstrued [Burgum’s] announcement as referring to construction excavation rather than archaeological excavation.”

Image

To be clear, none of Burgum’s X postings said anything about “archaeological excavation”; and given the administration’s three card monte-style messaging about the East Wing last year, the reaction by millions about imminent Arch construction was understandable. Moreover, no one at the administration did anything to clarify Burgum’s remarks or otherwise provide context for a full 24 hours until they were forced to.

Burgum’s performance brings to mind Kander & Ebb’s brilliant lyrics in the musical and movie Chicago:

Give 'em the old razzle dazzle, razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate

Burgum’s announcement was a gesture to please one person and suggest to the world the Arch was a fait accompli—and the reaction was passionate.

It was also a prelude to one of the next steps in the legally mandated review process, a Section 106 consulting parties meeting on Wed. Sept. 9, one day after the release of a compelling video produced by VoteVets and Homes of the Brave, in collaboration with TCLF, that featured Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (ret.), Gold Star Mother Karen Meredith, and TCLF’s Charles Birnbaum.  As a reminder, the Arch received final design approval from the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) on May 21, 2026, despite the commissioners not seeing final designs, and was expected to come before the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) on October 1 for final approval. However, NCPC final approval is predicated on competing a review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 identifies whether a project like the Arch could have negative impacts and how to “avoid, minimize, or mitigate” those so-called adverse effects.

TCLF, because of its expertise, is a consulting party to review process, as are other organizations. NPS, which is overseeing the Arch project and managing the consulting parties meetings, issued an extensive report on August 28, 2026, that identified dozens and dozens of “adverse effects” the Arch would permanently create. “Avoid” would include [a] not building the Arch or [b] siting it elsewhere. David Maloney, head of the D.C. State Historic Preservation Office, said the Arch should be sited in another location. What’s notable is that NPS said avoidance was not considered. The report states: "The NPS did not evaluate alternative locations outside Memorial Circle because the proposed undertaking is grounded in the historic design intent for the Arlington Memorial Bridge and Memorial Avenue corridor.”

The alleged “historic design intent,” according to NPS, is included in a 1924 report of the Arlington Memorial Bridge Commission, which called for erecting two 166-foot-tall “columns [that] were intended to frame, mark, and give architectural emphasis to the transition between Arlington Memorial Bridge, Memorial Circle, Memorial Avenue, and the entrance sequence to Arlington National Cemetery.”  NPS claims, “the current undertaking,” that is, the 250-foot tall Monumental Arch, “is intended to respond to and complete that historically contemplated idea at Memorial Circle.”

Image

There are several problems with this scenario and as video of the September 9 Section 106 consulting parties meeting demonstrates, NPS cannot provide straight answers. The 1924 Commission report specifically says on page nine: “two stately columns are proposed to be erected …framing in but not interfering with the view of the Lincoln Memorial from the direction of [what is now known as Arlington House].” [emphasis added] If that is the “historic design intent,” then the Monumental Arch, which would permanently interfere with those views and not frame them, does not represent that 1924 commission’s conclusions. When confronted with this, an NPS official deflected.

In addition, the draft Programmatic Agreement that would memorialize the conditions of the completed Section 106 process states: “The Undertaking will be consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties ...” Here’s the problem for the administration: these Standards are explicit that “Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.” When asked about this by TCLF’s Birnbaum, an NPS representative said: “I’m not sure I have a great answer to that question.”

CFA Secretary Thomas Luebke noted a striking contradiction. The purpose of the Arch, according to the NPS representative, is to “celebrate the [nation’s] 250th” anniversary. He asked if celebrating the 250th was part of the 1924 Commission report, which NPS repeatedly cited as the “historic design intent.” The NPS representative said, “I do not believe so.” In effect, NPS is citing a century old action with a different purpose as the intellectual and legal basis for an Arch in 2026.

The NPS representative said one intent of the meeting was to get consulting parties’ feedback about mitigation and minimization options. But she also stated: “In this undertaking we are unable to avoid the [negative] effects based on the purpose and need of the project …the project is location dependent and the design is set.”

Unlike Burgum’s post, the meeting did not “razzle dazzle 'em.” The administration’s obstinance based on a spurious interpretation of a century old report and the willingness of NPS to defy its own regulations has created an impasse. At the September 9 consulting parties meeting, Andrew Lewis with the D.C. State Historic Preservation Office observed of NPS' refusal to consider design changes or alternative locations, "The Park Service has failed to meet the most basic requirement of Section 106."

The project must still go to NCPC. The NPS representative said: “We anticipate doing that in November if we can conclude Section 106 by the submission deadline.” According to NCPC’s website, the project would need to be submitted 30 days before the Nov. 5 meeting. Will the Section 106 be completed in early October? 

While this is frustrating, advocates should not be discouraged. For a jolt of inspiration, watch the riveting video produced by VoteVets and Homes of the Brave, in collaboration with TCLF, and take action. Contact NCPC. This project also requires Congressional authorization, so contact your representatives in the House and Senate. You can affect this process.

Image