Trump Administration Prepares to Begin Excavation for Controversial Great Triumphal Arch Near National Mall

The Trump administration plans to break ground on its proposed 250-foot arch near Washington, D.C.'s National Mall in the coming days, without key approvals and despite an ongoing lawsuit.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum wrote on social media Thursday that "we are preparing to start, over the next two-week period, the excavation work necessary for the Great Triumphal Arch and Military Observation Deck."

But the arch is still awaiting final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, as well as federally mandated reviews regarding aviation safety and historic preservation.

Historic preservation experts have long criticized the Trump administration for seeming to rush the arch approval process, including by moving to weaken protections for historic sites altogether. This latest development raises concerns that the White House seeks to sidestep the process, which it denies.

"Work will begin that does not require approval, but rather helps in the process," the White House told NPR in a statement on Friday. "We will of course continue on our path of seeking final approval from all applicable entities."

The White House, Department of the Interior and National Park Service did not respond to NPR's questions about the timeline and extent of the excavations or the addition of the word "military" to the structure's title.

President Trump told journalists last year that the arch is for "me." But since then, the administration has said the arch is intended to honor the nation's 250th anniversary.

"This will be one of the Great Pieces of American Architecture, honoring the history and significance of Arlington Cemetery and befitting the most powerful Capital in the World," Burgum posted this week, alongside renderings of the white-and-gold structure, topped with three large gilded statues.

The arch has been controversial since its inception, greenlit by federal panels packed with Trump allies despite unanswered questions, thousands of overwhelmingly negative public comments and an ongoing lawsuit.

An architectural historian and three Vietnam War veterans, working with the nonprofit Public Citizen, sued to stop construction earlier this year. They argue the arch would desecrate Arlington National Cemetery and requires congressional approval, which Trump denies and has not sought.

On Friday, those plaintiffs asked the judge for a 14-day restraining order to prevent the Trump administration from "from taking any steps to construct or to direct or facilitate construction of any structure" on Memorial Circle, the traffic island on the historic bridge connecting D.C. to Arlington, Va.

"We have no sense of why the administration believes it's authorized to begin work on the arch," Nicolas Sansone, the attorney leading the case, told NPR on Friday.

He said any kind of preparatory work at Memorial Circle is "premature and has no legal basis." While the Trump administration disputes the need for congressional approval, he said, it has acknowledged the authority of the federal planning commission — which hasn't approved the arch and doesn't meet again until early October.

"Irrespective of one's sympathies for the president or antagonism toward the president, a system where the executive branch essentially gets to build first and answer later the question of whether that building is lawful should trouble all of us," Sansone said.

In a legal filing submitted Friday afternoon, the Trump administration clarified that it intends to conduct archaeological surveys, not construction activity. Administration lawyers said that involves "mechanically excavating four test pits" to observe aspects of the soil and recover potential artifacts, calling it a "standard predecisional, information-gathering technique."

Government lawyers said that activity will begin no sooner than Sept. 21, and "any park resources disturbed by the activity, including any disturbed grass, will be restored" by Oct. 31.

A political clock is ticking

The arch would stand smack-dab between the nation's most prominent military cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial, of which it would be more than twice the height.

Critics have a long list of concerns with the project, ranging from the financial cost to the impact on nearby funeral processions to questions of vehicle, pedestrian and aviation safety. Memorial Circle is less than 2 miles from the final approach path of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

"I have not met a single constituent in my inside-the-Beltway district, Democrat or Republican, who wants this arch," Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., told NPR on Friday, calling it "an illegal, gridlock-increasing, narcissistic arch."

One of the most-repeated criticisms is that the arch would disrupt the iconic and symbolically important view between Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial, which was designed to represent post-Civil War reconciliation. Opponents say a structure this size would violate D.C.'s longstanding height limits and reshape its carefully planned skyline.

On the latter, the Trump administration agrees: The National Park Service released a report last week confirming that the arch would disrupt the historical significance of dozens of nearby sites.

Even so, the agency said the "purpose and need for the undertaking require the proposed Arch to be located at Memorial Circle," dashing some critics' hopes that it could be moved elsewhere in the city.

Lawyers and historic preservation advocates are particularly concerned about how quickly the arch has been reviewed and preliminarily approved, even before Burgum's announcement.

Ed Stierli, the vice president of government affairs at the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association, told NPR last month that "it feels like more of a box-checking than an actual, legitimate process."

Beyer said he was disappointed by Thursday's news, but not surprised, given the impending midterm elections.

"I think Republicans expect that in nine weeks they're going to lose the majority of the House, maybe the Senate, and that this project could be endangered by a new Democratic majority that actually stands up to Trump," he said.

For now, Beyer said, the best chance of halting construction likely lies with the Vietnam veterans' lawsuit. And that legal fight is now escalating.

Ripple effects of the White House ballroom

On Thursday, the same day as Burgum's announcement, the Trump administration filed a motion seeking to have the case against the arch dismissed

The administration specifically cited the Supreme Court ruling this week over the White House ballroom.

The Supreme Court said that the historic preservation group that brought the ballroom lawsuit didn't have standing to do so. It allowed construction to continue without ruling on the project's underlying legality — though Chief Justice John Roberts, joining liberal justices in a dissent, wrote that it is likely unlawful without congressional approval.

The government's lawyers argue that the arch case should be dismissed on the same grounds as the ballroom case: "Plaintiffs' distaste for the perceived symbolism of the proposed arch does not establish a concrete and particularized injury."

Sansone, of Public Citizen, said the Supreme Court ruling actually strengthens his clients' case, because they have "attested to far more than mere offense at the government's action."

The veterans have a deep personal connection to Arlington National Cemetery, which they visit regularly, he said. And he added that the legal issues have been in front of a judge for months already.

"There's no real exigency for the government to proceed with construction of what it acknowledges is nothing more than a commemorative monument," Sansone said. "And so the announcement that work is about to proceed is really sort of running out ahead of the legal process."

Sansone sees Burgum's announcement as a sign that the government wants to proceed "come hell or high water," to the point where — as with the demolition of the White House East Wing — there isn't any practical relief a court can offer.

"The Supreme Court's decision in the ballroom case has made clear that once construction starts, it's very hard to walk it back," Sansone said.

Beyer, the congressman, expects to see "massive protests" if construction begins in earnest — and expects any structure that may get built to have a short lifespan.