A federal judge on Friday was skeptical of the Trump administration’s urgency to rush construction of a controversial 250-foot triumphal arch that the president wants to begin next week.
Judge Tanya Chutkan asked an administration attorney, “What’s the harm to the government to wait 3 or 4 months? What’s the rush to put this arch up?,” asking if the president’s main desire is to “bedazzle the city.”
Originally proposed as a monument for the country’s 250th birthday, the Trump administration now argues the arch located in a traffic circle would serve both a tourist attraction and a military complex to store drones and ammunition.
Chutkan noted that while Trump has been espousing these military justification claims on social media for months, in their lawsuits the “government had appeared to back away from that position.” The Obama nominee implied the Justice Department was “coincidentally” including national security interests in their argument now after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the White House ballroom in August on similar grounds.
Judge tears into senior DOJ official and orders investigation into Trump’s golf course plans
“We’re not talking about plans for a cafeteria, how exactly does the administration plan to use this for national security?” Chutkan pressed the Justice Department attorney Robert Stander.
In response, Stander referenced repeated attempts on Trump’s life, to which Chutkan countered, “The arch is somehow supposed to deter assassination attempts on the president? It’s going to be completed 3years from now.”
She also raised concerns with installing military equipment in an area the DOJ says will attract up to 22,000 civilian tourists a day.
The Justice Department argued that the challengers lacked standing, since the plans will not be finalized until next week’s National Capitol Planning Commission meeting. However, the administration previously said that construction could begin that same day upon approval. Chutkan pointed out that following this logic, plaintiffs would only have one day to bring forward a lawsuit.
“What would be final agency action,” she asked, “when bulldozers start digging up the ground?”
The group of veterans suing the administration requested an emergency court order to immediately halt construction of the arch, arguing it would undermine the sanctity of burial sites at Arlington National Cemetery. The proposed arch would obstruct the clear sightline of the row of national landmarks from the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington National Cemetery. Several of the veterans spoke in court Friday.
A ‘generational defense opportunity’: Hegseth offers full-throated endorsement of Trump’s arch amid legal battle
Chutkan told the plaintiffs she was not interested in any “distaste and disgust against the administration” but instead in how their personal experiences would be impacted by the looming arch.
She also appeared favorable to the argument that the veterans had more to lose than the plaintiff in the ballroom case who had cited aesthetic concerns, since they are active participants at Arlington National Cemetery, and the arch construction has not yet begun.
“The area is still pristine, the view is unobstructed, so why isn’t this case more like the golf course case?” Chutkan asked.
Trump’s arch faces another lawsuit from a county board in Virginia, so any future ruling from Chutkan will not be the end of the project’s legal challenges.
