Federal Judge Signals She May Halt Construction on Trump’s Arch
The Washington Post
Accessibility statement
Skip to main content
Democracy Dies in Darkness
Save and subscribe
Sign in
Democracy in America
Courts & Law
National Security
Elections
Federal Judge Signals She May Halt Construction on Trump’s Arch
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan expressed skepticism about the Justice Department’s arguments, including the project’s urgency. “What is the rush?” she asked.
October 30, 2026, 4:58 p.m. EDT
October 30, 2026
7 min
Summary
998
A view of Memorial Circle, the proposed site for the arch. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
By Dan Diamond
A federal judge on Friday questioned an administration lawyer about plans to start construction on President Donald Trump’s proposed triumphal arch as soon as next week, occasionally mocking his arguments and hinting that she might pause the project.
Subscribe for unlimited access to The Post
Save on unmatched reporting. Get your first year for €2 every four weeks.
“What is the harm of waiting?” U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan asked Assistant Attorney General Robert Stander, pondering a delay of several months. “What is the rush to put this arch up?”
Stander explained that the planned 250-foot-tall arch, intended to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary, is a “high-profile project” and that any delay would harm the government. He cited national security concerns, claiming the arch could help defend the region and that Trump has faced assassination attempts.
“The arch is somehow going to deter assassination attempts on the president?” Chutkan responded, one of several times she seemed unconvinced by the administration’s arguments.
Chutkan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, promised to rule “expeditiously” on whether the project can proceed. Trump administration lawyers hope to gain approval from a federal review panel on November 5 and start construction immediately.
The Justice Department is asking Chutkan to dismiss a legal challenge from three Vietnam War veterans and a historic preservationist who argue the arch is illegal because it hasn’t received explicit congressional approval and would harm their experience of visiting Arlington National Cemetery.
Stander argued on Friday that the plaintiffs cannot prove they would be harmed by the project, invoking arguments similar to those that helped defeat a legal challenge to Trump’s White House ballroom. In August, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a preservationist likely couldn’t prove she would be harmed by the ballroom’s construction and therefore lacked standing to sue. That ruling cleared the way for the ballroom to proceed.
“It’s the same thing,” Stander said.
Chutkan distinguished the two cases, noting that in the ballroom litigation, a preservationist said she routinely walked past the White House, while in this case, veterans have said their experience of viewing and visiting the military cemetery would be altered by the arch’s proximity.
“The ballroom case differs in significant respects,” the judge said, occasionally discussing the project’s potential impact on traffic, construction noise, and other possible harms. She also noted that in the earlier case, Trump had already begun demolishing the East Wing for the ballroom construction, while construction on the arch hasn’t started yet.
One veteran told Chutkan that he wouldn’t want to be buried in the cemetery if the arch is built nearby because it would detract from the cemetery’s symbolism.