Key federal panel is expected to approve Trump’s arch while it’s being challenged in court

(AP) — A federal panel deciding whether to give final approval Thursday to President Donald Trump’s proposed memorial arch in Washington began its hearing with the chair of the commission praising Trump for pursuing an arch that was called for more than a century ago under a law passed in the 1920s.

FILE – A mockup of President Donald Trump’s proposed triumphal arch stands at the Great American State Fair on the National Mall, June 27, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jen Golbeck, File)

“President Trump understands as president and a superb builder that it’s important to our national identity to display who we are through grand monuments,” said Mark Paoletta, chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission.

As Trump has often remarked, “the great cities around the world have arches: Paris, Rome, London,” said Paoletta, who also serves as general counsel for the White House Office of Management and Budget.

The planning commission is being asked to approve the 250-foot-high (76-meter-high) project, which Trump has sought as part of his efforts to remake the capital city. The vote could launch construction within a day.

Paoletta said it was a “national disgrace” that a memorial arch had not been placed there, despite a 1925 law that designated such a memorial, he said.

Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat who is set to chair the House Natural Resources Committee, called the project ill-advised and illegal.

“This arch will dishonor America,” Huffman told the commission. He called the proposed arch “a tribute to Donald Trump,” not veterans as Trump administration officials claim. The monument is similar to those built for emperors or kings, Huffman said, adding that Trump was using veterans as a pretext to build a memorial to himself.

The arch is one of several projects around Washington that the Republican president has undertaken as he alters the capital to his tastes — from renovating one of its storied public golf courses to threatening to demolish the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Those projects could soon face intense scrutiny after Democrats gained control of Congress in the midterm elections this week.

Many of the plans are being challenged in the courts, and three lawsuits have been filed opposing the memorial arch. A judge has been asked to block the construction so long as lawsuits are still being litigated, and she could rule as early as Thursday.

The commission oversees construction on federal land in the city and began reviewing the arch plan in June.

Opponents argue the arch is too big for the skyline and would disrupt carefully designed sightlines between landmarks in and around the capital — most prominently the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery — that were meant to symbolize the reunification of the North and the South after the Civil War.

But the opposition has done little to influence the members of the commission, which is led by some of Trump’s closest allies. Trump appointed Paoletta to chair the 12-member panel. Two other commissioners are also White House aides.

Still, a federal judge on Monday complicated Trump’s efforts to move quickly on the project.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s plans, said she must be told of any decision by the planning commission within an hour. The order set the same time limits for any decision by the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior.

Before Thursday’s hearing began, attorneys with the Justice Department filed a notice with Chutkan informing her that a contractor had already done site prep work on Halloween. “After investigating, the undersigned counsel was informed by a representative from Grunley Construction Company that the lines were painted by Grunley personnel on October 31, 2026. As best can be determined at this juncture, Grunley did not have authorization from the National Park Service (NPS) to undertake the line painting,” the notice said.

Chutkan, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, a Democrat, ruled in a case that includes complaints from the District of Columbia and Virginia, along with three veterans and an architectural historian.

Phil Mendelson, chairman of the District of Columbia council and a commissioner, questioned the purpose of the memorial and asked what impact its placement would have on the symbolic line between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House, Robert E. Lee’s former mansion, as a symbol of unification between the North and South after the Civil War.

All the plaintiffs are calling for a halt to work on a monument that is set to be built on a patch of grass off a bridge that spans the Potomac River and connects Washington with Arlington National Cemetery, in Arlington, Virginia. When complete, the monument would be 100 feet (30 meters) taller than the Statue of Liberty without its pedestal.

Critics, including the plaintiffs, argue the Trump administration must seek congressional approval. The administration maintains that Congress cleared the way for a monument at Memorial Circle decades ago.

Last week, the government submitted a 106-page plan for the arch that envisions a massive structure more than 12 stories high that includes a huge bronze statue of Lady Liberty with wings and carrying a torch with an eternal flame. The structure would include an observation deck with views to the east and the west and two mezzanines.

Inside the arch are rooms for program space, offices, a staff lounge, circular staircases, multiple elevators and a fire command center. The project proposes significant traffic changes in the area, including rerouting traffic on nearby roads. Administration officials have said the arch also will have a national security function.

In a recent hearing, Chutkan asked why the Trump administration was so keen on moving ahead quickly with the arch despite the ongoing lawsuits, aside from Trump’s “desire to bedazzle the city.”

Administration lawyer Robert Stander said that the arch was “absolutely a high-priority project” and that any ruling delaying construction would impede the work of the government.