A federal judge on Friday grilled an administration lawyer on plans to begin construction of President Donald Trump’s proposed triumphal arch as soon as next week, at times mocking his arguments and signaling that she could pause the project.
“What is the harm of waiting?” U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan asked Assistant Attorney General Robert Stander, musing about delaying the project for several months. “What is the rush to put this arch up?”
Stander told Chutkan that the planned 250-foot-tall arch, which Trump wants to build near Arlington National Cemetery to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary, is “absolutely a high-profile project” and that the government would suffer harm with any delays. Among his claims was that the arch is needed on national security grounds, noting that senior officials told Chutkan in filings this week that the arch will help defend the region and that Trump has faced assassination attempts.
“The arch is somehow going to deter assassination attempts on the president?” Chutkan replied, one of several times that she appeared incredulous toward the administration’s arguments.
Chutkan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said she would rule “expeditiously” on whether the project can proceed. Trump administration lawyers have said that they hope to win approval for the arch from a federal review panel on Nov. 5 and begin construction immediately afterward.
The Justice Department is asking Chutkan to throw out a legal challenge from three Vietnam War veterans and a historic preservationist who contend the arch is unlawful because it has not received explicit approval from Congress and would harm their experience of visiting the military cemetery.
Stander on Friday argued that the veterans and preservationist cannot prove that they would be harmed by the project, invoking arguments similar to those which helped defeat a legal challenge to Trump’s White House ballroom. The Supreme Court in August ruled 5-4 that a historic preservationist likely could not prove that she would be harmed by construction of the ballroom and therefore lacked legal grounds to sue. That ruling cleared the way for Trump’s ballroom to continue.
“It’s the same thing,” Stander said.
Chutkan drew a distinction between the two cases, noting that in the ballroom litigation, a preservationist said she routinely walked past the White House, while in the current case, veterans have said their experience of viewing and visiting the military cemetery would be altered by the towering arch nearby.
“The ballroom case differs in significant respects,” the judge said, at times discussing the project’s impact on local traffic, construction noise and other potential harms. She also noted that in the earlier case, Trump had already torn down the East Wing to begin construction on the ballroom, whereas construction has yet to begin on the arch.
One veteran told Chutkan on Friday that he would no longer want to be buried in the cemetery if the towering arch is built nearby because it would ruin the cemetery’s symbolism.
“I don’t want to be part of that,” Shaun Byrnes, a Navy veteran, testified.
Chutkan also pressed Stander to explain how the arch, which the government says will be a tourist site that draws thousands of visitors per day, would also serve a military purpose. Chutkan said she was skeptical of the government’s invocations of national security as a “talismanic” defense of Trump’s projects, including the ballroom.
Stander said he could not provide more detail about how the arch would be used for national security purposes, adding that he and his team only learned about the prospect of its military use after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Secretary Markwayne Mullin submitted declarations this week.
“This is the first time we’ve had this information,” Stander replied, drawing another sharp reaction from Chutkan. The judge suggested the government should have been prepared to discuss the implications, particularly after Trump last month announced that he would use the site as a military complex.
“We’re not talking about plans for a cafeteria,” Chutkan said, adding that the suggestion of storing ammunition and drones at a heavily trafficked tourist site — and near the flight path to Reagan National Airport — raised “serious” questions.
Stander also said that Chutkan should wait to rule until after “final agency action,” which could come next Thursday — the same day construction could begin.
In response, Chutkan repeatedly invoked Trump’s other construction projects, including his demolition of the East Wing.
“Judge Reyes might disagree with you,” she told Stander, mentioning fellow U.S. District Judge, Ana C. Reyes, who has accused the Trump administration of attempting to outrace the legal system by beginning work on Trump’s East Potomac golf course project after telling the court that they were waiting for a final administration decision.
Lawyers for Public Citizen, which is representing the veterans and the preservationist, on Friday urged Chutkan to halt the project.
“Time and time again, this Administration has demonstrated that, if not enjoined from doing so, it will take irreversible steps to render its unlawful pet projects a fait accompli,” lawyers wrote in a filing Thursday night.
The arch has drawn opposition from Arlington County, parks advocates, architects, Democratic members of Congress and other groups that have also urged Chutkan to block the project.
D.C. government leaders are also deliberating over whether to sue to block Trump’s planned triumphal arch, potentially increasing the legal pressure on the project, said three people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the potential legal filings.
City officials have privately discussed arguing that the 250-foot-tall arch would be illegal because it has not been approved by Congress and that the project would cause disruptions and harms to residents, the people said.
City leaders have not previously sued to block Trump’s construction projects, including the ballroom, the changes to the East Potomac golf course and other projects that have drawn local complaints. A spokesman for the D.C. attorney general’s office declined to comment on the potential lawsuit, which could be filed as soon as Friday. D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) declined to comment.
The White House encouraged several veterans groups this week to endorse the arch, positioning it as a tribute to veterans. The largest of those groups — the Vietnam Veterans of America — has since been roiled by the decision, and the group’s president has disavowed the endorsement, saying that the organization is neutral on the project.
In the past, federal review panels — comprising a bipartisan mix of architects, urban planners and other experts appointed by multiple presidents — served as referees on construction projects in and around Washington. Their feedback could slow projects for months or years and lead to significant changes, if not stop them altogether.
But Trump has remade those panels, firing Biden administration holdovers and installing close aides and allies — including his executive assistant — who have swiftly approved his most controversial projects.
As a result, federal judges have found themselves refereeing aspects of Trump’s construction projects, sometimes to their visible frustration.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush who oversaw initial litigation over Trump’s ballroom, castigated the administration’s arguments and eventually ruled in March that the project was probably illegal. He repeatedly said that he did not want to be consulted on minutiae related to the project.
“I have no desire or intention to be dragooned into the role of construction manager,” Leon wrote in an April opinion, after Trump insisted that Leon’s earlier ruling allowed him to keep building the ballroom.
But Leon and subsequent judges repeatedly allowed construction on the ballroom to continue as months of litigation played out, meaning that the project rapidly raced toward completion despite uncertainty over its legality.
Meagan Flynn contributed to this report.
The post Federal judge signals she may halt construction on Trump’s arch appeared first on Washington Post.
