Trump has floated plans for a large arch near the Lincoln Memorial as part of a larger push to remake parts of Washington’s public landscape, and he has framed the idea as an effort to finally deliver a centuries-old national aspiration.
In late January, Trump told reporters that “For 200 years they’ve wanted to build an arc,” describing the proposed monument as something Washington’s capital planning had sought for generations before never taking shape. Speaking aboard Air Force One as he flew to Florida last weekend, he said the project was “interrupted” by the Civil War and added that officials “almost built something in 1902” but that it never happened.
Trump also argued that the United States was unusual for not having a major arch in its capital, saying other cities around the world have such structures. He compared his idea to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris and said he wanted the Washington arch to be “the biggest one of all,” without confirming a specific height when asked aboard the plane.
The White House did not provide additional details beyond its response to questions about Trump’s history references. In a statement, spokesperson Davis Ingle said, “President Trump is right. The American people for nearly 200 years have wanted an Arch in our Nation’s capital to showcase our great history,” and characterized the plan as something that “will be imprinted upon the fabric of America.”
The AP review found that Trump’s specific historical references do not align with how Washington’s existing arch-adjacent landmarks came to be. When pressed about what Trump meant by “four eagles,” the White House sent a photo of eagle sculptures at the four corners of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, but did not further elaborate.
According to the National Park Service, the Arlington Memorial Bridge was first proposed in 1886 but was not approved by Congress until 1925, after the Civil War. The service says the bridge was conceived after the Civil War and was intended to memorialize the symbolic reunification of the North and South; the bridge was constructed between 1926 and 1931, meaning the timeline does not match Trump’s portrayal of an earlier effort derailed during the Civil War era.
The review also pointed to an earlier attempt at an arch-like monument in Washington that was not intended to be permanent. It found that Washington built a wood-and-plaster “Victory Arch” in 1919 to commemorate the end of World War I, and that the structure was torn down in the summer of 1920.
Trump’s remarks echoed a similar approach he has used to justify other major construction changes. He previously offered a historical rationale for a $400 million White House event space he began building after demolishing the East Wing ballroom area, arguing that officials for roughly 150 years had wanted a large event space, even as the AP described that claim as lacking a record of public outcry for a ballroom.
As Trump develops the arch project, he has also tied it to a wider agenda for federal and cultural landmarks, including changes tied to the Kennedy Center’s operations and other White House interior and exterior upgrades. The AP reported that Harrison Design, a local firm, is working on the arch proposal, but that no construction start date has been announced.
Trump’s proposal, first unveiled at an October dinner for top donors to his ballroom, included models of different sizes featuring a statue of Lady Liberty on top. At the time, he said the largest version was his favorite and, according to the Washington Post, he was considering an arch standing 250 feet (76 meters) tall, which would exceed the height of the Arc de Triomphe and would loom over the Lincoln Memorial, the White House grounds, and even nearby federal buildings if built at that scale.
Manning, a Georgetown University history professor, said Trump’s description of antebellum Washington overlooked how the city was still developing. She said Washington “coming into the Civil War” was “still this unfinished city” and described the lack of early push for decorative memorialization as consistent with a place still focused on functional infrastructure.
Manning also said she did not know of a long tradition of building arches in the United States “for things,” describing Trump’s idea as potentially an import from elsewhere.