WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s plan to build a 250-foot arch in Washington is up for review Thursday by a federal planning commission, which will consider whether the structure could disrupt flight patterns or violate laws restricting the height of buildings in the nation’s capital.

The National Capital Planning Commission, which is led by allies of Trump, has received nearly 1,700 public comments about the proposed triumphal arch, almost all of which opposed it. Staff at the commission have also raised several issues about Trump’s plan.

Aside from their concerns about the flight pattern and height issues, members of the panel have said the president’s proposal lacks adequate information about building materials, proposed lighting and stormwater management compliance, according to a document prepared by the group before Thursday’s meeting.

The commission is the federal government’s planning agency for the Washington, D.C., region, but Republicans and employees of Trump control a majority of the votes on the panel.

The commission’s chair, Will Scharf, who also serves as Trump’s White House staff secretary, said in an email that the staff members’ comments were routine and noted that commission personnel nonetheless recommended advancing the project.

Scharf called the requests for more information and compliance with existing laws “entirely unremarkable with respect to our usual project approval process and timeline.” He said that he expected a discussion at the meeting about whether the plans for the arch violate the federal Height of Buildings Act. That law generally does not allow buildings more than 160 feet tall to be built in Washington.

One federal advisory panel, the Commission of Fine Arts, has already granted approval for the project after the president made some modest changes to its design, including removing plans for statues of gold lions perched along the arch.

The future of the project is still uncertain, however.

The Federal Aviation Administration is reviewing whether the proposed arch could pose an aerial hazard, an evaluation that it requires for all structures more than 200 feet tall. The arch would sit about a mile from a Pentagon heliport and about 2 miles from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, one of the country’s busiest flight hubs.

A group of Vietnam War veterans has sued to stop construction of the arch, citing the lack of congressional approval for the project and arguing that the arch would obstruct the view between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The Trump administration has argued that congressional actions in the 1920s connected to the design of the Arlington Memorial Bridge already give it the legal right to build the arch.

Many critics of the plan have contended that the grandeur of the structure would detract from the solemnity that should be observed at the cemetery nearby.

In comments to the National Capital Planning Commission, which the commission posted online, many said that the arch would be a monument more to Trump than to the country. (Trump underscored that belief when he was asked by a reporter who the arch was for, and he replied, “Me.”)

“Please don’t build this monstrous vanity project to please Trump,” said one letter, signed by Jane Allison.

Another, signed by Ann Trowbridge, criticized the arch’s “ugly, garish design” and said: “It is too tall, a waste of current and future taxpayers’ money and will permanently scar the federal landscape of both Arlington and Washington.”

Some, however, supported the project. “I think the arch will look fantastic,” wrote Will Nance. “I can’t think of a better way to commemorate our 250th anniversary as a country.”

Davis Ingle, a White House spokesperson, said the proposed arch would “enhance the visitor experience at Arlington National Cemetery for veterans,” and serve as a “visual reminder” of the sacrifices made by Americans through the country’s history.

“The Triumphal Arch in Memorial Circle is going to be one of the most iconic landmarks not only in Washington, D.C., but throughout the world,” Ingle said.

—

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

By Luke Broadwater/Doug Mills
c. 2026 The New York Times Company