Vietnam War veterans suing over Trump's planned “Great Triumphal Arch” at Memorial Circle went back to court after Interior Secretary Doug Burgum posted on September 3, 2026, that the administration was “preparing to start over the next two-week period” the “excavation work necessary for the Great Triumphal Arch and Military Observation Deck.” An April consent order already required the National Park Service to publicly authorize construction and give at least 14 days' notice before construction or demolition in preparation for it.
Justice Department lawyers said Burgum was describing archaeological testing: “This activity is not construction, or demolition in preparation for construction, of an arch.” Jennifer Nersesian, a Park Service regional director, said in a sworn declaration that crews would dig four test pits, each about 8 feet by 16 feet. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who oversaw Trump's federal January 6 case, ordered the government to give 48 hours' notice before other work at the site and warned that construction or demolition before final Park Service authorization, or without 14 days' notice, would violate existing court orders. At an April hearing she had said, “What I do not want is for ground to be broken while this case is pending.”
According to Law&Crime, the Justice Department then asked Chutkan to “dissolve” or “clarify” the order, which it said “has already interfered with public safety and park maintenance,” writing: “The Court should dissolve its unlawful and unwarranted 48-hour hold on routine agency actions that cause no harm to Plaintiffs.” The plaintiffs responded, “Defendants' arguments are meritless, and this Court should deny their motion.” The motion itself has been reported by one outlet. In early August, the Park Service found the arch would have “adverse effects” on several historic sites (see To Build His 250-Foot Arch, Trump's Interior Department Argues a 1910 Law Capping Washington's Buildings Never Applied to Federal Ones).
Update (September 17, 2026): the Park Service's revised Assessment of Effects, dated August 28, concludes that “adverse effects could not be fully avoided while still meeting the undertaking's location-dependent purpose,” and that “the proposed location is central to the purpose of the undertaking and is not interchangeable with another site.” It finds the most substantial effects along the corridor from Memorial Circle across Memorial Bridge to Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington House and the Lincoln Memorial, and adverse effects on six of the 31 National Historic Landmarks in the review area, including the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol; the harms it describes are mainly visual, spatial and nighttime. The Washington Post reported on September 16 that the agency had circulated a proposed agreement stating that “adverse effects cannot be fully avoided” and asking local preservation officials to sign, with mitigation such as signs, documentation and scheduling construction around funerals. The Post noted, “The administration does not need the preservationists' consent to move forward,” and that officials hope to submit the design to the National Capital Planning Commission “as soon as November.” Rebecca Miller of the DC Preservation League wrote, “This is not consistent with NPS practice, NPS regulations, or the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act.” White House spokesman Davis Ingle said the arch “is going to be one of the most iconic landmarks not only in Washington, D.C., but throughout the world.”
Update (September 28, 2026): the federal preservation review has been cut short. On September 22, the Park Service told the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that more consultation was “unlikely to result in agreement,” and that alternatives to avoid the harm “would alter the fundamental nature of the proposed undertaking and fail to achieve its goals.” Two days later the council's vice chairman, Travis Voyles, ended the Section 106 consultation: “In recognition of the public's significant concerns regarding the adverse effects the undertaking would pose to historic properties, we are hereby terminating consultation pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.7(a)(4).” The Park Service's assessment identified 42 historic properties in the affected area, including 6 National Historic Landmarks, and found the arch would harm them.
What that means: no agreement will be signed and no mitigation terms will bind the government. The council will send advisory comments, which it says it aims to deliver by October 7, after taking public comment through September 29. Under the regulation, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum must consider those comments and document his decision, and then, in the council's words, “the Section 106 review for this undertaking will be concluded.” The final design approval still rests with the National Capital Planning Commission. Charles Birnbaum of the Cultural Landscape Foundation: “This truly is boundary busting.” Virginia's Department of Historic Resources had written that “DHR anticipates all the proposed mitigation will do will further highlight how this undertaking has marred rather than added to these spaces.” Greg Werkheiser of Cultural Heritage Partners told CNN that if the arch becomes the military installation Trump has described, the Interior secretary would be permitting a different project than the one reviewed: “That's a clear legal vulnerability.”
The same week, Rep. Don Beyer said he saw heavy equipment on Columbia Island; workers told him it was archaeological soil work, which Judge Chutkan's order exempts. Beyer: “Trump's arch is illegal and immoral, and the Administration is also under court order requiring 48 hours' notice before work proceeds.” CNN reported that military families object to a planned observation deck looking toward Arlington National Cemetery. Andrea Nachman, whose husband is buried there: “It's not what we in the military families would want – it's very private, we're not a sideshow.” Sen. Tammy Duckworth, noting that the arch would sit in the flight path of Reagan National Airport, where a January 2025 midair collision killed 67 people, wrote to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford that “The FAA and DoD must reject this foolhardy plan and instead focus on increasing the safety of the airspace,” CBS reported. See Trump Says His Washington Arch Will Become a 'Military Complex' With Drones, Snipers and Ammunition, and the Pentagon Has Nothing to Add.
Update (October 31, 2026): the arch now faces three lawsuits. On October 31 the District of Columbia and Virginia sued in federal court, the AP reported, naming the National Park Service and the Interior Department, according to The Hill. Attorneys General Brian Schwalb and Jay Jones call the arch “flagrantly unlawful” because Trump did not seek congressional authorization, The Hill reported, and the complaint says, “Defendants have made clear that they will attempt to outrun judicial review.” They argue that during three years of construction the 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,” the AP reported. Like the veterans, they seek a temporary restraining order. Arlington County sued in early October.
Schwalb told The Hill, “Construction of the Arch is flagrantly illegal and will cause serious, immediate, and irreparable harm to the District and its residents.” Jones: “President Trump's illegal vanity project is an affront to this hallowed ground and the extraordinary sacrifices it represents.”
At an October 30 hearing in the veterans' case, Judge Chutkan did not rule but said she would move expeditiously. She asked how the government would be harmed “apart from the executive's desire to bedazzle the city” if she issued a preliminary injunction, the AP reported; CNN reported her asking, “What's the harm to the government to wait three or four months? What's the rush to put this arch up?” Justice Department lawyer Robert Stander called the arch “absolutely a high priority project.” When Stander cited the attempts on Trump's life, Chutkan answered, “The arch is somehow supposed to deter assassination attempts on the president? It's going to be completed three years from now,” CNN reported.
The Justice Department argued that the challengers lack standing because the plans are not final until the National Capital Planning Commission meets on Thursday, November 5, though the administration has said construction could begin the same day. “What would be final agency action,” Chutkan asked, “when bulldozers start digging up the ground?” On October 30 the government filed a 106-page plan for a structure more than 12 stories high with a winged bronze Lady Liberty, an observation deck and a “fire command center,” the AP reported; administration officials say the arch will also have a national security function. Chutkan noted that in the lawsuits the “government had appeared to back away from that position,” CNN reported, and suggested the national security argument was arriving after the Supreme Court's August ballroom ruling on similar grounds.
Update (November 1, 2026): Judge Chutkan consolidated the District of Columbia and Virginia suit with the veterans' lawsuit she is overseeing and ordered a joint briefing schedule, the AP reported, without giving the dates. No ruling on a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction had been reported as of that account, updated the night of October 31.
Speaking to reporters at a Halloween party at Mar-a-Lago that night, Trump said the arch “is very important militarily for Washington, D.C., and our country,” and, “whether it's Virginia, Maryland, or Washington — it doesn't matter. It's something the region needs militarily, and I think aesthetically also,” the AP reported. The Hill reported that the final plans submitted to the city did not include the military complex, after Trump had said the arch would be used for snipers and drones.