Judge asks if Trump’s desire to rush the Arc de Triomphe in Washington is to ‘dazzle the city’

A federal judge on Friday expressed skepticism about the Trump administration’s urgency to speed up construction of a controversial 250-foot triumphal arch that the president wants to begin next week.

Judge Tanya Chutkan asked an administration lawyer, “What’s the harm in the government waiting 3 or 4 months? Why is it in a hurry to build this arch?”, asking whether the president’s main desire is to “dazzle the city.”

Originally proposed as a monument for the country’s 250th anniversary, the Trump administration now says the arch located in a traffic circle would serve as both a tourist attraction and a military complex to store drones and munitions.

Chutkan noted that although Trump had supported these allegations of military justification on social media for months, in his lawsuits, “the government appeared to move away from that position.” Obama’s nominee suggested that the Justice Department was “coincidentally” including national security interests in its argument after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the White House Ballroom in August on similar grounds.

“We’re not talking about cafeteria projects. How exactly does the administration plan to use this for national security?” Chutkan put pressure on Justice Department lawyer Robert Stander.

In response, Stander referenced repeated attempts on Trump’s life, to which Chutkan retorted: “The ark is supposed to somehow deter assassination attempts on the president? It will be completed in three years.”

She also raised concerns about the installation of military equipment in an area that the DOJ said would attract up to 22,000 civilian tourists per day.

The Justice Department argued that the challengers lacked standing, since the plans will not be finalized until next week’s National Capitol Planning Commission meeting. However, the administration previously said construction could begin the same day after approval. Chutkan pointed out that under this logic, plaintiffs would only have one day to file suit.

“What would be the agency’s final action,” she asked, “when the bulldozers start digging into the ground?” »

The veterans group suing the administration requested an emergency court order to immediately stop construction of the arch, arguing that it would undermine the sanctity of the Arlington National Cemetery burial grounds. The proposed arch would obstruct the clear line of sight to the row of national monuments from the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington National Cemetery. Several veterans spoke in court Friday.

Chutkan told the plaintiffs she was not interested in “any disgust or loathing with the administration” but rather in how their personal experiences would be affected by the impending ark.

She also favored the argument that veterans had more to lose than the plaintiff in the ballroom case who cited aesthetic concerns, since they are active participants in Arlington National Cemetery and construction of the arch has not yet begun.

“The area is still pristine, the view is clear, so why doesn’t this case look more like a golf course?” » asked Chutkan.

The Trump Arch faces another lawsuit from a Virginia county board, so any future decision by Chutkan won’t mark the end of the project’s legal challenges.