Vietnam veterans moved for an emergency court order on Friday to pause any advance on Trump’s arch, a proposed 250-foot triumphal monument in the Washington area that they say lacks required approvals and would harm protected views.
The motion for a 14-day temporary restraining order was filed by veterans Michael Lemmon, Shaun Byrnes, and Jon Gundersen, along with architectural historian Calder Loth. They are represented by the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington, D.C. The filing followed a post on X a day earlier by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum stating that “excavation work” related to the project would begin within two weeks and describing the planned arch as a major work of American architecture intended to honor Arlington National Cemetery.
Trump’s arch plan and location
According to the filing, the project has not been authorized by Congress. The arch is planned for Memorial Circle in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from the Lincoln Memorial. A model was unveiled in October 2025, when the president told CBS News the monument is dedicated to himself.
At 250 feet, the structure would surpass the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which is 162.5 feet tall. The plaintiffs contend the installation would disrupt sightlines between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.
Prior lawsuit and April stipulation
The veterans initially sued in February, naming Trump, Vince Haley of the president’s office, and the National Park Service. They sought to halt the project unless and until Congress gave approval.
In April, they agreed to dismiss a motion after receiving assurances that the National Park Service would not authorize construction without posting a notice online and would provide at least 14 days’ advance notice before starting construction or demolition related to construction.
Claims of unlawful action
In Friday’s filing, the plaintiffs assert that the course of action announced by Secretary Burgum is unlawful and conflicts with the court’s April order. They argue that once construction begins, reversing it presents significant practical problems, and that the defendants have not shown that starting work on a commemorative arch is so urgent that a brief pause would cause irreparable harm to the government or the public interest.
The plaintiffs ask the court to issue a temporary restraining order preventing the defendants from proceeding in a way that could render the project a fait accompli before the court rules on its legality.
Government says work is survey only
In a responding filing, submitted to address what it described as the plaintiffs’ misunderstanding, the administration said the planned activity is “long-disclosed Phase 1B archaeological survey work” to ensure compliance with statutes including the National Historic Preservation Act. The response states that the work is not construction or demolition in preparation for construction of the arch, and that it will involve digging four test pits.
Congressional role in the capital’s plan
The plaintiffs note that planning for the District of Columbia has long been subject to careful oversight, and that since 1912 Congress has been responsible for authorizing additional monuments and structures.
Broader dispute over federal projects
The filing situates the dispute within a wider clash over efforts to reshape federal sites. It cites actions undertaken in pursuit of remodeling the White House and other landmarks, including gilding monuments near the Lincoln Memorial, adding the president’s name to the Kennedy Center contrary to its founding documents, and removing a major Joel Shapiro artwork from the center’s grounds.
The most dramatic example cited in the filing is the demolition of the White House East Wing last October to make room for a combined ballroom and military bunker, which preservationists argue is out of scale with the historic complex. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, allowed that construction to continue without congressional approval, ruling that the National Trust for Historic Preservation lacked standing to sue.
Debates over how art and architecture are presented in public spaces have also surfaced in the cultural sphere, from disputes over museum expansions to exhibitions such as the planned opening of the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art in Los Angeles.