.jpeg) |
| (Instagram) |
Whenever the Trump administration tackles a project, you can expect incompetence and dishonesty to quickly take hold. That familiar process is unfolding at this moment as Trump attempts to pull off a con job in order to make his controversial "Triumphal Arch" palatable to oversight groups and the public. What kind of con job is Trump trying to pull? It involves the use of deceptive language. As of last Friday, Trump was advertising the arch as one thing. Then, on Sunday, he started referring to it as something else. That's nutty enough, but get this: Trump actually wants to use the arch as the site for a sniper's nest. (We can't just let the sniper's-nest idea drop, so we will return to that near the end of this post.)
That brought a heavy dose of Trump-flavored chaos to the federal review process that is required for building such a structure. One critic in Congress has called Trump's plan "cartoonishly illegal." But so far, that hasn't seemed to deter a president who has an ear only for his own thoughts and not for those of people who actually know what they are talking about.
We are more than a year and a half into Trump's never-ending second term, and we have become familiar with his pattern of disregarding norms, rules, procedures, statutes, court orders, even constitutional amendments -- structure of any kind. It is not certain yet that the arch review process will turn into a slog. But a jointly published report at The Washington Post and Yahoo! News indicates that could be the outcome. Under the headline "Trump's plan to militarize proposed arch raises new legal, safety concerns," The Post's reporting team of Dan Diamond, Liam Scott and Dan Lamothe writes:
President Donald Trump's push to convert his planned triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery into a military complex has complicated a required federal review process and raised new legal and safety concerns.
Trump unveiled his new national security rationale Sunday in a post on Truth Social, saying that the 250-foot-tall arch project - which he has framed for nearly a year as a tourist attraction - will now house drones, snipers and ammunition. The president said he was making the change at the request of the U.S. military.
One oddity is that Trump announced the change on what is considered his personal social-media platform and financial asset. That implies, at least to me, that he is directing this project on his own -- without input from anyone who might know how such projects actually come to life in the nation's capital. It also raises this question: Is Natalie Harp, Trump's "human printer" and well-publicized online mouthpiece, forming content about the arch, in total or in part? The Post team writes:
Critics of the plan saw echoes of Trump's shifting security case for the White House ballroom, which the administration has used to defend that project in court. But while presidents have historically had some leeway to revamp the White House grounds, the arch would stand on federal parkland more than a mile away, where Congress has set stricter rules for construction.
"There is nothing that authorizes or justifies a massive arch, even if Trump tries to disguise it as a military facility," said Rep. Jared Huffman of California, the top Democrat on a House committee that oversees federal parkland. "This is cartoonishly illegal, but he's obviously trying to find a way to do it anyway." (By the way, I like the way Huffman talks. "Cartoonishly illegal" is a superbly crafted phrase, one that should resonate with the public -- and perhaps it indicates Dems should keep Huffman in mind as a candidate for higher office someday.)
Experts in a variety of fields already are voicing concerns about various aspects of the arch project? Will Trump pay them any mind? Will the Colorado Rockies win this year's World Series? Here is more from The Post:
Aviation experts warned Monday that using drones at the planned arch site - Memorial Circle, a roundabout near Reagan National Airport - could pose risks in the airport's crowded airspace.
"Anything you add to the airspace complicates the airspace and increases the operational risk," said Tom Lintner, a former safety official at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Other military and safety experts have questioned the implications of storing ammunition in the middle of a heavily used traffic circle and whether tourists could still enter the arch as previously planned.
Some of the problems with Trump's plans are so obvious that it shouldn't take an expert to point them out. Consider the following;
(1) Using drones near Reagan National Airport -- We wrote about a similar issue just last month when Trump's determination to turn the White House into a construction zone -- with work on his ballroom/military bunker, a new helipad, and other projects -- contributed to communication problems that led to a commercial airliner and the presidential helicopter coming uncomfortably close to each other at Reagan National. We noted that Reagan National has the single busiest commercial runway at a U.S. airport. We also noted that the airliner-helicopter near-miss revived memories of a January 2025 incident at Reagan National that killed 67 people, the deadliest U.S. air crash in more than two decades.
(2) Storing ammunition near a congested traffic circle -- Gee, what could go wrong? Consider the following from Yahoo! News:
Critics mocked the idea and slammed it as "stupid, dangerous and unworkable" and "bizarre." Some suggested the change was made to ensure the arch gets past court challenges on national-security grounds.
Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., warned that the arch would sit directly in the flight path of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
"Putting a drone launching site directly in the landing path for DCA is a stupid, dangerous, and unworkable idea," the congressman posted on X. "Trump clearly expects to lose a lawsuit and therefore wants to set up a pretext to argue that the arch is tied to national security. Which is obviously idiotic."
Trump critic George Conway wrote several social media posts slamming the idea.
"Everyone who has gone to military school knows that absolutely the best place to put an ammo dump is at a major traffic junction near the heart of your capital city," Conway posted. "Reichsfeldmarschall Donald von Bone Spurs strikes again!!!"
Journalist Chuck Todd said the change makes the arch a bigger target.
"If this is actually something being considered, it seems weird to broadcast to the world where they can find a stash of weapons to target in D.C.," Todd said. "This is obviously some bizarre effort to wrap this arch idea into national defense."
We were heartened to learn that historic preservationists are involved in the project, but according to The Post, they are not pleased with how things are going:
Historic preservationists participating in a required federal review process said they could not move forward until the administration clarifies Trump's plans for the arch. Administration officials last week had asked Washington and Virginia's preservation offices to agree to a memorandum of agreement (MOA) by Monday as part of that process, and they invited other preservationists to participate.
"This MOA is DOA," Charles Birnbaum of the Cultural Landscape Foundation wrote in an email to the administration on Monday. An official for Washington's historic preservation office also wrote in an email that the office needed clarity on Trump's post. Both emails were shared with The Washington Post.
Perhaps the preservationists need clarity because Trump has floated the murky (and "bonkers") idea of including snipers' nests in the arch. Trump has claimed the U.S. military requested the facility for snipers, but according to a report at Reuters, he has not identified any person or office that made such a request, and a military official had no comment. Here is more from the Reuters article:
Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel, said that while there was a stronger case for enhancing security at the White House, including expanding underground bunker facilities, the rationale for militarizing the arch was harder to discern.
Cancian said the move appeared aimed at countering opposition to the monument, which is planned for a traffic circle just 1 mile (1.6 km) from Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, an active Army installation, and 2 miles from the Pentagon.
"It looks like it's tacked on in order to strengthen the rationale for construction," Cancian, a senior adviser with the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, told Reuters. "There is this military facility long established with a variety of military capabilities one mile away. So why you need this one isn't clear."
Cancian also said that storing ammunition at the arch would create logistical challenges and questioned the value of positioning snipers there.
Retired Air Force Col. Cedric Leighton voiced similar concern in a video interview at CNN. When asked if Trump's plans for the arc make strategic sense, Leighton said:
It doesn't. It's one of the oddest things I've heard when it comes to a monument of this type.
When you look at defensive positions, drones usually are placed where can they do some good. Here, they will be in the flight path of Reagan National Airport. As you look at domestic positioning, you wonder: Where will snipers do their work and for what purpose will they do their work? There is no military reason for these things to be on any building of this type.
The only time that i can find when an arch was used for military purposes was in 1871 when the French used the Arc de Triomphe as an artillery position when there was civil strife in Paris.
There is no reason that justifies the construction at the White House East Wing and ballroom. There is a military complex under that structure, so there is no reason to justify construction -- if you want to call it that -- going on there.
For this proposed construction, I would like to see the military justification for that. In looking over these kinds of things in the past, I've never seen a justification that would fit for this.
U.S. Rep Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) added the following:
There is such a high level of absurdity around this. D.C. already has an anti-aircraft system in place for military purposes. There is no need for this.
But the biggest piece for me, with a number of veterans in my life, is that this is so insulting to those who actually served. Trump's public statements indicate he wants to build this arch for himself. I find it disgraceful.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
