More than 100 people wasted their time showing up and expressing their outrage and opposition to Trump’s glorious triumphal arch before the Trump-controlled National Capital Planning Commission. The meeting went late into the night, but the outcome was never in doubt, as the chair of the commission made clear beforehand.

“President Trump’s historic vision for a monumental arch at Memorial Circle would complete a project over a century in the making, and honor our nation and her veterans, and provide the sacred ground of Arlington National Cemetery with the monumental gateway it deserves,” Mr. Paoletta said. “It would also represent a generational security opportunity to protect our nation’s capital.”

After all, where would Trump put the snipers if not on the arch? The government’s primary justification is that it was approved by the 1925 Act to build the Memorial Bridge. Judge Tanya Chutkan made short shrift of that contention.

Defendants contend that the 1925 Act remains in effect because “Columbia Island remains incomplete”—an “approximately 300-foot-diameter circle of grass” instead of a plaza and park. Opp’n at 5. And they claim the 1925 Act authorizes construction of the Arch at that location. See id. at 29. But merely to state this argument is to reveal its flaws. The sheer improbability that a 100-year-old statute would contain authority, unknown to every previous administration, to erect a 250-foot arch at a principal location in the Nation’s capital indicates how far Defendants must stretch to justify this project. Assume, for purposes of argument, that the construction of Memorial Bridge has not yet ended and the 1925 Act remains in effect. The Act would authorize only the construction of two 166-foot columns that do not block the “view of the Lincoln Memorial from the direction of the Lee Mansion.” Bridge Comm’n Rep. at 41. The proposed Arch is 250 feet tall, fifty percent taller than the columns that were ultimately rejected. It would squarely block the view of the Lincoln Memorial from the Lee Mansion. See Revised EA at 19. And it would be built for an entirely different purpose—commemoration of the Nation’s independence—than the 1925 Act’s authorization for “the construction of a memorial bridge across the Potomac River.” 1925 Act § 1.

Apparently realizing that this argument was a pathetic loser, the government created a last minute claim that the arch would really be a drone and sniper fortress, filled ammo lest the snipers run out while protesters remain standing. Except Judge Chutkan wasn’t deeply moved by this last minute attempt to manufacture a national security rationalization for the arch beyond it being a monument to Trump.

Defendants also assert—belatedly—that the Arch represents “a generational national defense opportunity,” and that the Arch may assist in combating or deterring assassination attempts on the President. Opp’n at 43 (quoting Hegseth Decl. ¶ 10); Oct. 30, 2026 Hr’g Tr. at 63:1–7. They submit, through declarations proffered by the Secretaries of War and Homeland Security, that “significant national security benefits” would result from the Arch’s construction. Opp’n at 43–45. The court appreciates the government’s significant interest in national security. But these recent and unsupported attestations of security aspects of a structure that has been extensively discussed over the last year appear nowhere in the planning documents on which the project was reviewed and approved. Indeed, they materialized, for the first time, when Defendants filed their opposition brief last week. When asked at the hearing about the security aspects raised in the Hegseth and Mullin declarations, the government responded that it had no further information other than what was contained in the declarations.

But the most notable thing about the decision was that it was dated November 5, as it was anticipated that the government would begin construction immediately, meaning this morning, upon the commission’s approval.

The federal panel’s decision to go ahead with Mr. Trump’s plan would have allowed construction to begin as soon as Friday morning. But the ruling by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan halted construction for 14 days while legal challenges make their way through the court system.

The TRO will stay the project for only 14 days, enabling the matter to proceed without the damage already being done, like the East Wing of the White House being demolished without warning. It’s anticipated that the next Congress will kill the project, despite Trump’s obsession with the arch. While it may be too late to do anything about the grandiose ballroom, at least there is hope that Trump’s dream arch will never happen.