US President Donald Trump's proposed 250-foot triumphal arch in Washington could see construction begin as early as November 5, according to news agency Associated Press. However, a group of military veterans and an architectural historian are trying to stop the project before work starts. The four have asked a federal judge to block construction, arguing that the administration must first obtain approval from Congress. November 5 is also the day when the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) is expected to consider the project's final plans. If the commission approves them and the remaining government requirements are completed, construction could begin that same day. The latest request was submitted on Thursday to US District Judge Tanya Chutkan. The plaintiffs include three veterans and a retired architectural historian. They are seeking a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order that can stop an activity while the legal dispute continues. The planned monument would stand in a traffic circle across the Potomac River from the Lincoln Memorial, close to Arlington National Cemetery. Trump has proposed a structure measuring 250 feet, or about 76 metres, in height. Although the project has received some initial approvals, questions remain about whether those permissions are sufficient and whether the location is suitable for such a large monument.
Opponents fear work may begin before ruling
The November 5 timeline became clear after the Justice Department submitted a notice to the court on October 21. The filing followed an earlier direction from Chutkan requiring the government to provide at least 14 days' notice before beginning construction. The government has outlined several conditions that must be met before work can start. Besides approval from the NCPC, the Interior Department must issue its final decision authorising construction. The National Park Service must also publish the required notification. Officials have indicated that these steps could be completed by November 5, making it the earliest possible date for construction. For those opposing the project, the concern is that construction could begin while the court is still considering the legality of the monument. Their filing argues that the administration has continued preparing for construction rather than waiting for the judicial process to conclude.
The 1925 law at centre of the disagreement
One of the biggest questions in the case is whether a law passed more than a century ago gives the administration permission to build the arch today. The government has pointed to legislation signed by President Calvin Coolidge in 1925, which authorised the construction of Memorial Bridge. According to ABC News, the administration believes that the law also covers the proposed arch because the original plans for the bridge included columns at its end. The veterans and the architectural historian disagree. They argue that the 1925 legislation cannot be used as permission for the present monument and that Congress must specifically authorise its construction. They also say that officials have conducted site testing, prepared architectural designs and approached planning commissions while failing to seek approval from Congress. The US Commission of Fine Arts has already given the proposal preliminary approval. Its members were appointed by Trump, but the plaintiffs maintain that decisions by such commissions do not settle the question of congressional authorisation.
Questions over the arch's design and location
Apart from the legal dispute, the proposed monument has attracted attention because of its size and the additional purposes Trump has discussed for it. The president has previously suggested that the arch could accommodate security operations involving drones and snipers. However, the plans submitted by the Interior Department to the NCPC do not specifically describe the military complex he had mentioned. The department has said that the design could accommodate such a facility. There are also concerns about how the structure would affect its surroundings. In September, the administration acknowledged that the project would have adverse effects on the setting and views along the Potomac River. It nevertheless maintained that those effects could not be completely avoided because the chosen location was important to the proposal.
Another legal challenge
The lawsuit brought by the veterans and the historian is one of two cases challenging the arch. Earlier in October, the Arlington County Board in Virginia filed a separate case in the Eastern District of Virginia. The board questioned the pace at which the project was moving and argued that it had not undergone the full review process. The Trump administration has rejected that allegation. Meanwhile, Chutkan has directed the parties in the veterans' case to discuss and submit a schedule for further court filings by noon on Friday. The arch is among several Washington projects being pursued by Trump, including changes to a public golf course and proposals involving the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
