The Trump administration is building a 250-foot arch near the National Mall and has landed on a creative legal theory to get around the 115-year-old federal law that would prohibit it: the law, they say, simply does not apply to them. The chair of the very commission reviewing the project floated this argument himself, from inside the building, while leading the meeting. This is actually happening.
The Law Is Just a Suggestion, Apparently
Here is the situation, as NPR reports it. The 1910 Height of Buildings Act has governed construction in Washington D.C. for over a century. It is a federal law. The Trump administration's proposed 250-foot arch near the Arlington Memorial Bridge would appear to violate it. The administration's response, delivered through the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor in a four-page memo, is that the 1910 act is "just a local zoning ordinance and does not apply to the United States."
Read that again. A federal law is, according to the federal government, not applicable to the federal government. The logic here is so circular it might as well be an arch.
The National Capital Planning Commission, to its credit, fired back with its own four-page memo. The commission's general counsel Meghan Hottel-Cox wrote that since 1938, the NCPC has operated under the clear understanding that the Height of Buildings Act "was intended to bind federal projects" and has applied it accordingly. She warned that abandoning that interpretation "could fundamentally reshape the city's architectural fabric, the balance of local vs. federal authority, and the visual character of the nation's capital."
The Guy Leading the Review Is Also the Guy Undermining It
Will Scharf is the chair of the National Capital Planning Commission. He is also a Trump appointee. He is also the White House staff secretary. He also traveled with Trump to the NATO summit in Turkey this week, which tells you everything you need to know about where his loyalties are parked.
At last month's meeting, according to NPR, Scharf personally seeded doubt about whether the height law even applies to the arch project, openly contradicting what he acknowledged was the "long-held" position of the commission he has chaired for a year. At Thursday's meeting, after the commission voted 8-1 to advance the preliminary plans, Scharf promised a "vigorous debate" on the height question at the September meeting. Vigorous debate, led by the man who already told you which side he's on.
This is a bit like hiring a fox to chair the Henhouse Safety Commission, watching him suggest the fence might not technically apply to foxes, and then nodding along when he says there will be a spirited discussion about it in September.
What D.C.'s Height Rules Are Actually About
The administration's framing treats D.C.'s height restrictions as some bureaucratic nuisance dreamed up by city planners who hate fun. The actual history is more interesting than that. As NPR explains, the rules weren't created to protect views of the Washington Monument, despite the popular myth. They came out of a practical panic in the 1890s, when a 164-foot residential skyscraper called the Cairo was completed and terrified neighbors with concerns about blocked light, air, and whether the fire department's ladders could reach that high.
The result was a century of building codes that gave Washington its distinctive low skyline, where the 555-foot Washington Monument rises above everything else and the whole city opens up around the National Mall. That character is not an accident. It was a deliberate, sustained choice made by generations of planners, architects, and legislators.
Now the Trump administration wants a 250-foot arch plopped down along the Arlington Memorial Bridge, directly across from the Lincoln Memorial and within sightlines of Arlington National Cemetery, and their legal theory for making it happen is that federal law does not bind the federal government. Got it.
Everyone Who Showed Up Was Against It
Thursday's public comment period was not a close call. NPR reports that over 40 people spoke out against the arch at the meeting, following nearly 2,000 written comments the commission has received opposing the project. Protesters rallied outside. Vietnam War veterans have filed a lawsuit against the arch, arguing it would block the historic view line between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery and desecrate one of the country's most significant military burial grounds.
One of the speakers at Thursday's meeting was Kristopher Reichert, a D.C. resident who co-chairs the local chapter of Principles First, a right-leaning anti-Trump group. He put it plainly: "Our greatest memorials emerged through time, public consensus, and history's judgment, not the preferences of those holding office. No administration, regardless of party, should claim the privilege of reshaping America's monumental core without first demonstrating the restraint that has defined our republic for nearly 250 years."
The commission listened to more than two hours of public opposition, then, according to NPR, had "minimal discussion" and voted 8-1 to move the project forward anyway. Three members voted "present," which is the bureaucratic equivalent of hiding under your desk.
The First Review Board Was a Rubber Stamp
The National Capital Planning Commission is actually the second federal body to review this project. The first was the Commission of Fine Arts, which focuses on aesthetics rather than planning. That panel is packed entirely with Trump appointees. NPR reports it quickly approved the administration's incomplete design back in May.
So the aesthetic review, conducted by an all-Trump panel, was fast and favorable. The planning review, conducted by a commission chaired by the White House staff secretary, is advancing despite massive public opposition. And now the administration is quietly arguing that the federal height law protecting D.C.'s entire skyline simply does not apply to federal structures at all.
A White House official told NPR that the administration does not believe the Height of Buildings Act restricts the project and added: "We expect the Arch proposal to proceed as-is." No congressional authorization. No broad public support. No problem.
The Dingo Take
Let's be precise about what is being argued here, because the casual framing of this as a "debate" obscures how radical it actually is. The Trump administration is not disputing the interpretation of a gray area in the Height of Buildings Act. It is claiming that a federal law passed by Congress in 1910 and applied consistently for nearly ninety years does not legally bind the federal government at all. If that argument holds, it is not just a 250-foot arch going up near the Lincoln Memorial. It is open season on the entire regulated skyline of the American capital. Every federal agency that wants to build tall could use the same theory. The administration is not asking for an exemption. It is arguing the law never applied in the first place.
And the process itself is almost as alarming as the legal theory. The commission chair who is supposed to provide independent review is a White House staffer who travels with the president to NATO summits and has already told you he thinks the height law doesn't apply. Over forty people showed up to say no. Two thousand written comments said no. Veterans who bled for this country are suing to stop it. The commission had minimal discussion, voted to advance it, and promised a vigorous debate in September. That is not a review process. That is a clock-running exercise dressed up in parliamentary procedure.
Somewhere in the National Archives there is a copy of the Height of Buildings Act of 1910, a law passed by actual Congress people, signed by an actual president, applied faithfully for over a century to protect the one city in America that belongs to all of us. The current administration has decided that law is, essentially, a local suggestion that doesn't apply to them. If that does not bother you, imagine how you'd feel if the other party was doing it.
