Trump administration ends historic review of proposed Memorial Circle arch
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation halted the Section 106 review of a planned 25-story arch at Memorial Circle, giving the public a brief comment period amid controversy over the project's purpose and safety.
The vice chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation announced Thursday that the Section 106 review for a proposed "Triumphal Arch" at Memorial Circle has been terminated. The review, which normally requires federal agencies to solicit public input before proceeding, was ended before the consultation process was completed, leaving the public only three and a half business days to submit comments. Responses must be emailed to [email protected] by 11:59 p.m. ET on Tuesday, Sept. 29.
The arch, promoted by the Trump administration as a "military facility" that could house observation decks, drones and ammunition storage, has drawn opposition from veterans groups and preservation advocates. Critics argue the structure would obstruct views of Arlington National Cemetery, create safety hazards near a busy airport flight path, and conflict with existing historic preservation laws.
"In arguing against the veterans’ lawsuit, the project’s lead agency, the National Park Service, said the arch did not need congressional approval because a 1925 law had already authorized a pair of columns on that end of Memorial Bridge," wrote Janay Kingsberry, reporting for The Atlantic.
Experts cited potential violations of safety regulations that govern ammunition storage, which typically require protected "quantity-distance" zones to safeguard nearby people and infrastructure. Professor Patrick Suermann, a construction-science specialist and retired Air Force officer, noted that such requirements could limit public access to the site and possibly affect traffic on the surrounding bridges.
The administration’s effort to label the arch as a military installation is seen by some legal analysts as a strategy to bypass standard review procedures, a move that could invite additional lawsuits and increase project costs, which have been estimated at roughly $100 million.