Democrats Sue to Stop Trump's 250-Foot Arch. Congress Approved 166-Foot Columns for the Same Island in 1925

Five days before President Trump's arch for America's 250th birthday could break ground, the two Democrats who run legal affairs for Washington, D.C., and Virginia went to federal court Saturday to stop it.

D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb and Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones call the 250-foot Triumphal Arch at Memorial Circle "flagrantly unlawful" in their 46-page complaint. Their headline argument is height: D.C. law says "[n]o building" may top 130 feet, and the arch "would nearly double that statutory restriction."

What the complaint skips is that Congress already signed off on something taller than 130 feet on that exact island. The Interior Department laid it out in an Oct. 2 memo to the federal planning commission: the 1925 law that built Arlington Memorial Bridge adopted a plan calling for "two 166-foot-tall columns on Columbia Island," with spiral staircases inside. They were never built. The arch's main body, Interior says, is 166 feet tall, "the exact height of the columns authorized by the 1925 Act."

What D.C. and Virginia want

The suit, against the National Park Service, the Interior Department and Secretary Doug Burgum, asks a judge to declare the arch illegal and block any construction or site work. It says the project needs a fresh act of Congress under the Commemorative Works Act, breaks the Height of Buildings Act, and skipped required environmental and historic reviews.

The two states, as they see it, would pay the price. The complaint warns that two to three years of round-the-clock work, which the Park Service plans for "20 hours per day," would "inevitably snarl traffic," cut westbound Memorial Bridge to two lanes and send "20 to 30 trucks" a day through the circle. It also says the arch would sit "at the center" of the view between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House, a sightline built to tie North and South together after the Civil War.

Jones went further in a statement Saturday, calling the arch "President Trump's illegal vanity project" and "an affront to this hallowed ground," meaning Arlington National Cemetery. Schwalb said construction "is flagrantly illegal and will cause serious, immediate, and irreparable harm to the District and its residents."

Interior's answer

Interior's memo makes four points. First, the 1925 law carved out that site from the 130-foot cap when it approved 166-foot columns there. Second, Congress gave the old Bridge Commission, whose powers Interior now holds, broad authority to "make such changes in design," and Interior has used it before: it created Memorial Circle itself and added the Arts of War and Arts of Peace statues under the same law.

Third, the height law covers "buildings," and the arch is a structure. "No reasonable person would label a column a 'building,'" the memo says. "So too for the Washington Monument, the Statue of Liberty, or the Gateway Arch." Fourth, the 1910 cap grew out of fire worries tied to the firefighting equipment of about 1900, a concern that doesn't fit a stone arch. Interior also argues the cap doesn't bind federal projects at all.

Think of it like a building permit pulled in 1925 for a 166-foot tower on a lot. Interior says the permit never expired; D.C. says the tower was never built, so the permit died with the old commission.

The drones

There is a security piece, too. On Sept. 20, Trump posted on Truth Social that the arch would double as "a top grade Military Complex" able to house "large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas," as the complaint quotes it. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin filed sworn declarations on Oct. 28 saying the arch "will be utilized as a dual purpose structure: a major national monument that also incorporates military utility." The complaint notes the site sits within hundreds of feet of the approach path to Reagan National Airport, in one of the busiest and most tightly controlled airspaces in the country.

D.C. and Virginia turn that into another argument: the environmental reviews never weighed a drone base in a traffic circle.

Who's on whose side

This is the third lawsuit against the arch. Three military veterans and an architectural historian sued first, in a case before Judge Tanya Chutkan, who ordered on Sept. 4 that the government give 48 hours' notice before any site work. Arlington County sued this month.

On the other side, six veterans organizations told Chutkan on Oct. 28 that they back the arch and oppose halting it: the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Korean War Veterans Association, the Chosin Few, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the National Vet Court Alliance and Veterans for America First. The Vietnam Veterans of America later said it does not endorse the arch's "specific design," while acknowledging that the brief "expressly supported construction of the arch." National President Tom Burke added a line that cuts against anyone, on either side, claiming to speak for all vets: "Being a veteran gives you the right to an opinion. It doesn't give you the right to speak for every veteran."

When Arlington County sued, White House spokesman Davis Ingle called that case "meritless and dilatory" and said the administration "has been fastidiously compliant with all procedural and legal requirements."

What happens next

The National Capital Planning Commission takes its final vote on the arch on Thursday, Nov. 5, at 1 p.m. The government told the court on Oct. 21 that if the commission approves, construction "could commence as early as November 5, 2026." D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who sits on that commission, filed a declaration backing the suit.

D.C. and Virginia say the government is trying to "outrun judicial review." The government's answer is that the review already happened, starting with the Congress that approved those columns in 1925. A judge now has five days to decide whose reading wins.