COLUMN: A 76-meter arch that overshadows Lincoln

Memorial Circle, a Sacred Site of Democracy

The planned location for the arch is Memorial Circle, a circular area at the end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, across the Potomac River from the Lincoln Memorial. This site is managed by the National Park Service and lies at the heart of Washington, D.C.’s monumental complex, in the immediate vicinity of some of the most symbolic spaces of American democracy. The area already features numerous monuments and memorials that commemorate pivotal moments in U.S. history. The addition of a structure of this scale to this historically significant setting raises profound questions about preserving the visual and symbolic integrity of the National Mall, which was designed as a space for collective remembrance rather than individual glorification.

Memorial Circle. The name alone should inspire respect, contemplation, and reflection. It is a space where millions of people have come to reflect on their country’s history, on the sacrifices of their ancestors, and on the ideals that unite them. And now, someone wants to erect a personal monument there. I feel genuine outrage. It’s as if someone decided to build a statue of himself on the grave of a stranger just because he has money. The National Mall is not a playground for the ego of a billionaire-turned-president. It is a sacred place, a space where a nation’s collective history takes shape. Trump seems incapable of understanding this concept of secular sanctity. To him, everything is a branding opportunity; everything is a potential platform to display his name or image.

Private Funds Behind a Public Monument

Funding for this ambitious project would come from private donations collected as part of Trump’s White House ballroom initiative. The exact cost of building the arch has not been publicly disclosed, but to give a sense of scale, the White House ballroom project is estimated at $400 million. According to statements Trump made during a dinner with his supporters in October 2025, the ballroom project would be fully funded, and the remaining funds would be used to finance the construction of the arch. This use of private funds for public monuments on federal land raises significant ethical and legal questions, particularly regarding the potential influence of donors on presidential decisions and the preservation of the independence of public spaces.

Private funds for a public monument on federal land. The very idea sounds like a threat to democracy itself. Who are these donors? What do they expect in return? What kind of influence is being bought behind these gilded facades? I am deeply troubled by this lack of transparency. History has shown time and again that when private interests finance public projects, the public interest always ends up suffering. It is a form of institutionalized corruption, a commodification of public space that transforms democracy into a commercial transaction. And Trump—the man who built his fortune on opacity and shady deals—sees no problem with exporting these methods to the very heart of the presidential institution.

An Administrative Ordeal

The construction of a new monument on the National Mall or in its immediate vicinity requires approval from several federal commissions and agencies. According to historic preservation experts, the approval process typically involves 24 distinct steps established by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), which must approve the designs in collaboration with the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA). Federal law explicitly prohibits any new construction on the National Mall itself, although exemptions have been granted by Congress in exceptional cases, such as for the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which opened in 2016. Preston Bryant, former chair of the NCPC, stated that the approval process alone would take at least a year, making it highly unlikely that the project would be completed by July 4, 2026.

One year. That’s the minimum amount of time the approval process alone would take. And Trump hopes to have everything finished by July 2026. The denial of reality is absolutely staggering. It’s as if someone announced they were going to build a cathedral in six months just because they really want to. Democratic institutions, regulatory processes, technical expertise—none of this seems to matter to a man accustomed to getting what he wants through sheer force of will and money. I feel a certain fear in the face of this profound ignorance of the limits of presidential power. A president cannot simply decree the construction of a monument and expect the world to adapt to his desires. It is this authoritarian entrepreneur’s mentality that fundamentally threatens democratic institutions.

Concerns About Historical Integrity

Architecture and historic preservation professionals have expressed serious reservations about the visual and symbolic impact of such a structure. Architects and preservationists warn that a 250-foot arch could dominate the historic landscape and overwhelm the capital’s carefully planned monuments. Christine Henry, director of the Center for Historic Preservation at the University of Mary Washington, explains that any new monument requires a comprehensive assessment of its environmental, aesthetic, and technical impact—a process that typically takes several years. The Commission of Fine Arts, whose members include experts in architecture and historic design, would also have a say in whether the project fits with the overall aesthetic of the National Mall.

I have a certain admiration for these architects and preservationists who dare to speak out against this project. They are defending not only the visual integrity of Washington, D.C., but also a certain idea of architecture as a collective language—an expression of a community rather than an individual. Monumental architecture is not neutral. It communicates values, it establishes a hierarchy in space, and it dictates how we should behave and what we should respect. A 76-meter arch facing the Lincoln Memorial sends a clear message: individualism triumphs over democracy, spectacle trumps substance, and the present crushes the past. And it is this message that terrifies me.

Three Variations on the Same Symbol of Glory

The renderings posted by Trump on Truth Social in January 2026 show three different versions of the arch, all featuring American eagles and the inscription “The Independence Arch” at the top of the structures. The first version includes gold accents similar to those in the Oval Office redesigned by Trump, with two Roman-style statues depicting unidentified women. The second version, similar but without the gold accents, features two statues of male figures who appear to be former presidents or other historical figures. The third version does not include any statues. The arch is visually inspired by the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which has earned the project the nickname “Trump Arch” in the media. The designs were created by architect Nicolas Leo Charbonneau of Harrison Design, who posted a watercolor rendering of the project on social media in September 2025 with the caption “America needs a triumphal arch.”

“America needs a triumphal arch.” That phrase gives me chills. What triumph are we talking about exactly? One man’s victory over institutions? The conquest of democracy by authoritarianism? The subjugation of the Republic to a cult of personality? The Arc de Triomphe in Paris commemorates the military victories of the French Republic, not Napoleon’s personal glory. But here, there is no ambiguity. It is a monument to Trump’s glory—an “Arc de Trump,” as the media so aptly put it. The gilded accents, the Roman statues—all this neoclassical aesthetic in the service of a fundamentally modern and narcissistic project. It’s architectural kitsch, an autocratic version of Disneyland. And the scariest part is that some people take it seriously.

A name that leaves its mark on every space

This arch project is part of a broader series of renovations and developments undertaken by Trump in Washington, D.C., since his return to the White House. The president has already had the famous Rose Garden—created by Jackie Kennedy—re-landscaped, added gold accents to the Oval Office, and unveiled a Presidential Walk of Fame along the West Wing colonnade, featuring gold-framed portraits of himself and the other 44 presidents. The proposed White House ballroom project, slated to span 90,000 square feet and cost $400 million, would require the demolition of the historic East Wing. Trump has also appointed loyalists to the Commission of Fine Arts, replacing all six previously appointed members, in order to facilitate approval of his architectural projects.

Every space must bear his mark. Every corner of the White House must reflect his taste, his aesthetic, his vision. This is a systematic effort by a single man to appropriate American history. Jackie Kennedy’s Rose Garden—that garden that has witnessed so many historic moments—is now paved over for the comfort of one man. The East Wing—that part of the White House that has hosted decades of official ceremonies—has been sacrificed for a private ballroom. I feel a deep sadness at this methodical destruction of the presidential heritage for the sake of personal branding. Trump does not understand that he is merely the temporary custodian of these spaces, not their owner. The White House belongs to the American people, not to the man who occupies it for four years.

Resistance Movements Are Organizing

The ballroom project is facing growing opposition from both preservation organizations and elected officials. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has filed a lawsuit against the ballroom project, and U.S. District Judge Richard Leon raised serious doubts about its legality during a hearing in January 2026, questioning the president’s authority to build on the East Wing site without congressional approval. Opposition to the arch could follow a similar path, with organizations like the National Trust likely to challenge the project in court. Historic preservation advocates point out that the laws protecting the National Mall and existing monuments were specifically designed to prevent this type of uncoordinated initiative that could distort the historic landscape.

Finally, resistance. Finally, people who dare to say no. I feel a sense of hope seeing these organizations mobilize, these judges ask questions, and these citizens express outrage. It’s a sign that democracy isn’t dead—that it still has defenders ready to fight for its sacred spaces, for its history, and for its integrity. Trump may have presidential power, money, and the media, but he does not have a monopoly on legitimacy. Institutions, as imperfect as they may be, can still function as checks and balances. And perhaps that is where true hope lies: in civil society’s ability to organize, to challenge, and to resist the arrogance of power.

A legacy that divides rather than unites

The Independence Arch project embodies the contradictions of a presidency that seeks to leave an indelible mark on the American landscape while deeply dividing the nation. Unlike traditional monuments that seek to commemorate shared events or values, this arch appears to be designed as a personal statement rather than a collective tribute. Experts agree that even if expedited procedures were put in place, it is unlikely the project will be completed in time for the 250th anniversary of independence in July 2026. The future of this initiative therefore remains uncertain, depending not only on regulatory and legal obstacles but also on the political and financial will to sustain it in the face of growing opposition.

76 meters. That may be all that remains of this delusional project: a number, an ambition, an ego that sought to touch the sky. Or perhaps, with a little luck, nothing at all will remain. Just an abandoned idea, a faded nightmare, a history lesson on the dangers of hubris. I dare to hope that reason will ultimately prevail, that the institutions will stand firm, and that collective history will triumph over personal ambition. Washington, D.C., deserves better than a Trump Arch. America deserves better than a monument glorifying a single man. And Lincoln, that silent giant who continues to watch over the capital from his marble temple, deserves not to be overshadowed by a structure that understands nothing of true greatness. Greatness is not measured by the height of a monument. It is measured by the depth of the values it represents.

Signed, Jacques Provost