The governments of Washington, D.C., and Virginia asked a federal court to block construction of President Trump's planned 250-foot "triumphal arch," arguing in a Saturday filing that the project is unlawfully tall and would snarl traffic for years.
In the filing, first reported by the Washington Post, the two governments call the project "flagrantly unlawful" and ask a judge to issue injunctions stopping any site preparation or construction. "During the three-year period of construction, the Arch project will inevitably snarl traffic between the jurisdictions, produce pollution and stormwater runoff in the Potomac, interfere with emergency services, and pose numerous other challenges," they argue. The city and state also claim the defendants, the National Park Service and the Interior Department, rushed the project without the proper consultations.
The proposed arch would be one of the largest such monuments in the world. The project has sparked concerns that it could interfere with other national symbols, block views and complicate landings for pilots at nearby airports, though the FAA found otherwise. The Park Service's own August report indicated construction would have adverse effects on nearby monuments and landmarks.
The administration has argued the arch would be a major tourist attraction and vital to national security, serving as a base for snipers and drones. The White House was not immediately available to comment on the petition Saturday.
The filing comes as construction could begin as soon as this coming week. A federal judge held a hearing Friday on a separate challenge to the arch and indicated she may block construction at least temporarily.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The lawsuit aims to stop a presidential monument project before site preparation begins, which could happen as soon as this coming week.
- At 250 feet, the arch would rank among the largest such monuments in the world, with disputed effects on nearby landmarks, the Potomac and regional traffic.
- The case runs alongside a separate challenge already before a judge, who has indicated she may block construction at least temporarily.
Background
The arch is a monument project proposed by the Trump administration, with the National Park Service and the Interior Department named as defendants in the lawsuit. Washington, D.C., and Virginia oppose it on legal and practical grounds, arguing the approval was rushed and that three years of construction would disrupt the region. Large memorial projects in the U.S. capital typically go through federal consultation and review, and disputes over their design and effects are often settled in court.
Key Perspectives
Washington, D.C., and Virginia: call the project "flagrantly unlawful," saying three years of construction would snarl traffic between the jurisdictions, produce pollution and stormwater runoff in the Potomac, interfere with emergency services and pose numerous other challenges.
The Trump administration: argues the arch would be a major tourist attraction and vital to national security, serving as a base for snipers and drones.
The FAA: found the arch would not complicate landings for pilots at nearby airports.
What to Watch
- Whether the judge in the separate challenge blocks construction at least temporarily, as she indicated she may do.
- Whether the court grants the injunctions D.C. and Virginia are seeking to stop site preparation and construction.
- Whether site preparation begins this coming week before the court rules.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedWashington, D.C., and Virginia sued to block construction of Trump’s planned 250-foot arch.Axios: “The governments of Washington D.C. and Virginia asked a federal court to block construction of President Trump's planned " triumphal arch "”
- SupportedThe filing calls the project “flagrantly unlawful.”Axios: “"This project is flagrantly unlawful," the two governments said in a Saturday filing in D.C. federal court”
- SupportedThe governments seek injunctions to stop any site preparation or construction.Axios: “The city and state are asking a judge to issue injunctions to stop any site preparation or construction on the project.”
- SupportedThe governments say the arch is unlawfully tall and would snarl traffic for years.Axios: “asked a federal court to block construction of President Trump's planned " triumphal arch ," claiming it's unlawfully tall and would snarl traffic for years.”
- SupportedThe governments say construction would last three years and inevitably snarl traffic, produce pollution and stormwater runoff in the Potomac, interfere with emergency services, and cause other challenges.Axios: “"During the three-year period of construction, the Arch project will inevitably snarl traffic between the jurisdictions, produce pollution and stormwater runoff in the Potomac, interfere with emergency services, and pose numerous other challenges," they argue.”
- SupportedThe Washington Post first reported the filing.Axios: “the two governments said in a Saturday filing in D.C. federal court, first reported by the Washington Post.”
- SupportedThe governments claim the National Park Service and Interior Department rushed the project without proper consultations.Axios: “They further claim that the defendants — the National Park Service and the Interior Department — have rushed the project without the proper consultations.”
- SupportedThe proposed arch would be one of the largest such monuments in the world.Axios: “The proposed 250-foot arch would be one of the largest such monuments in the world”
- SupportedConcerns include possible interference with national symbols, blocked views and complications for nearby airport landings; the FAA found otherwise.Axios: “sparking concerns that it could interfere with other national symbols, block views and even complicate landings for pilots at nearby airports. (The FAA found otherwise.)”
- SupportedThe Park Service’s August report indicated the arch’s construction would adversely affect nearby monuments and landmarks.Axios: “The Park Service's own August report indicated the construction of the arch would have adverse effects on nearby monuments and landmarks.”
- SupportedThe administration has argued the arch would be a major tourist attraction and vital to national security, serving as a base for snipers and drones.Axios: “The administration has argued it will be a major tourist attraction — but also vital to national security, serving as a base for snipers and drones.”
- SupportedConstruction could begin as soon as the coming week, and a judge who held a hearing Friday on a separate challenge indicated she may temporarily block construction.Axios: “It's a last-minute gambit to stop construction before the multi-year project begins, potentially as soon as this coming week. ... A federal judge held a hearing Friday on a separate challenge to the arch, and indicated she may block construction at least temporarily.”