By Tom Hicks | September 21, 2026
Editorial Note:
Off Script is independent journalism. The reporting below is based on public records, government documents, and reporting from multiple news organizations. Conclusions are my own.
Donald Trump wanted a triumphal arch.
Apparently, that wasn’t enough.
The president said Sunday that his proposed 250-foot arch near Arlington National Cemetery will now double as what he called a “top-grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch.” According to Trump, the structure would house large numbers of drones, put snipers on its roof and plaza areas, and store ammunition. He said the change came at the “strong request” of the United States military and was necessary for national security. Associated Press | Reuters
That is quite a job description for an arch.
More importantly, it’s a substantial change from the project the federal government has been reviewing. Until now, the argument has centered on whether Trump should be allowed to put an enormous triumphal monument beside Arlington National Cemetery, how big it should be, and whether he has the legal authority to build it in the first place. Once you add drones, ammunition and sniper positions, there’s another question on the table: Are we even talking about the same project anymore?
YOUR SUBSCRIPTION KEEPS THIS WORK GOING
Your subscription helps fund reporting, research, publishing, new features, and the continued growth of every Tom Hicks Media publication.
FIRST IT WAS A MONUMENT
The Interior Department submitted the project to the National Capital Planning Commission as a “New Monumental Arch.” Its stated purpose was to celebrate “the triumphs of the American people,” inspire patriotism, and beautify the capital. The proposed location is Memorial Circle on Columbia Island, at the western end of Arlington Memorial Bridge and directly along the historic axis connecting the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. National Capital Planning Commission
This isn’t a tasteful little gateway tucked into the scenery. The proposed arch would rise 250 feet, measured from its base to the top of its statuary. Paris’ Arc de Triomphe is roughly 164 feet tall, so Trump’s version would stand more than 80 feet taller than the monument that apparently wasn’t monumental enough.
The National Capital Planning Commission gave preliminary approval to the site and building plans in July, but that wasn’t a blank check. Additional issues still had to be addressed before final review, and the project continued through historic-preservation procedures while officials considered its height, transportation effects, and impact on the surrounding monumental landscape. National Capital Planning Commission
All of that review concerned an arch.
Then Sunday came along.
Trump announced that the monument would also contain drones, ammunition and sniper positions. Maybe federal law and the planning process allow those additions without materially changing the project. But that’s something the agencies responsible for reviewing it should determine, because adding an operational military purpose isn’t exactly the architectural equivalent of changing the drapes.
“THE MILITARY ASKED FOR IT”
Here’s where the story gets more interesting.
Trump didn’t present the military component as another one of his ideas. He said it was being added, “at the strong request of the United States Military.”
That’s a specific and potentially verifiable claim. If somebody in the military concluded that Memorial Circle needs a permanent facility containing drones, ammunition, and sniper positions, there should be some record of how that conclusion was reached. There may be details that legitimately can’t be made public, but somebody should at least be able to identify the branch or command involved and explain the security requirement behind the request.
So far, that hasn’t happened.
The Pentagon told the Associated Press it had no information beyond Trump’s statement. Reuters reported that neither the White House nor the Defense Department immediately provided additional details about the supposed military request. Associated Press | Reuters
That doesn’t establish that Trump made it up, and we shouldn’t pretend it does. What it establishes is that the administration has attached a national-security justification to a major change in a controversial federal project without yet showing the public where that justification came from.
If the military asked for it, show us what can be shown.
That’s not a particularly radical standard.
THERE WAS ALREADY A LEGAL FIGHT
The arch was already headed through federal court before anyone started discussing sniper positions. Three Vietnam veterans and an architectural historian sued to stop the project, arguing that federal law requires congressional authorization before a memorial can be built on the site and that Congress never authorized Trump’s arch. The administration disputes that reading of the law and argues that earlier congressional action involving Memorial Circle gives it sufficient authority to proceed. Public Citizen
Earlier this month, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced that excavation would begin. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan subsequently reinforced restrictions on work beyond archaeological excavation, while the government had previously agreed to give the plaintiffs at least 14 days’ notice before construction began. The larger question of whether the administration has the legal authority to build the arch remains unresolved. Reuters | Public Citizen
And now the president has complicated things himself.
The government has spent months defending its authority to build a monumental arch. Federal planners have been reviewing a monumental arch. Preservation officials have been evaluating the effect of a monumental arch. The people suing the administration are challenging a monumental arch.
Trump is now calling it a military complex.
Whether that distinction matters legally is for the courts and agencies to determine. But surely somebody should determine it before we start pouring concrete.
THE PLANS KEEP MOVING
Even before Trump’s latest announcement, the project wasn’t exactly gliding through Washington untouched.
Historic-preservation officials recently urged the administration to consider two columns instead of the massive arch. They pointed toward an original 1920s vision for Memorial Circle that would have framed the view rather than dominated it. Trump’s proposed structure is roughly 165 feet wide in addition to being 250 feet tall, so the fight over scale has never been a minor disagreement over whether the thing needs another coat of paint. The Washington Post
There was also the small matter of putting a 250-foot structure near one of America’s busiest airports.
The Federal Aviation Administration concluded Friday that the arch wouldn’t pose a substantial hazard to aircraft using nearby Reagan National Airport, although the structure would have to be illuminated and marked so pilots could see it. That removed one regulatory obstacle from a project that still doesn’t have final planning approval. Reuters
But again, look at what everyone was reviewing.
The FAA evaluated an arch near an airport. Preservation officials evaluated an arch in a historic landscape. Federal planners evaluated an arch at Memorial Circle.
Nobody was publicly debating whether Memorial Circle was the right place for an ammunition-storage and drone facility with snipers stationed overhead.
Now they should be.
THE BIGGER PATTERN IN WASHINGTON
This would be easier to dismiss as one eccentric project if the arch existed in a vacuum. It doesn’t.
Trump has pursued an unusually broad series of physical changes around Washington, including the White House ballroom project, changes involving the Kennedy Center, refurbishment of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and redevelopment plans for the East Potomac Park golf course. The administration presents these projects as improvements to federal property and the capital. Critics, including preservationists and the veterans challenging the arch, argue that some of the changes threaten historically important spaces or sidestep safeguards created to protect them. Reuters | Associated Press
The national-security argument is worth watching too. Trump has recently described the White House ballroom as serving a national-security purpose, and now he’s using similar language for the arch. National security is obviously a legitimate government concern, but invoking it shouldn’t mean everybody else is required to shut up and admire the blueprints. Associated Press
If the military needs drones positioned at Memorial Circle, there may be an excellent reason. The same goes for sniper positions and ammunition storage. Explain as much of that reason as security permits, identify who made the request, and let the agencies charged with reviewing federal construction decide whether the new mission changes what they’re being asked to approve.
That’s what oversight looks like when it works.
THIS ISN’T REALLY ABOUT AN ARCH ANYMORE
People can argue forever about Trump’s architectural taste. Maybe you think the arch would be magnificent. Maybe you think it looks like something Napoleon would’ve ordered after three bottles of wine. Neither opinion answers the important question.
The federal government started with a proposal for a monumental arch celebrating America’s 250th anniversary. That’s what agencies reviewed, preservation officials examined, and opponents challenged in court. Trump has now described a structure that would also function as a military facility containing drones, ammunition and sniper positions.
Perhaps those uses can coexist legally and practically inside the same 250-foot monument. Perhaps the military has a compelling security reason for wanting them there. If so, make the case and let the normal review process examine the project that’s actually going to be built.
Because the government shouldn’t be able to get approval for one thing and then quietly build another.
Especially when the difference is snipers and ammunition.
THE BULLSHIT DETECTOR
THE CLAIM:
The United States has handled its current measles outbreaks better than “any country in the world.”
Bullshit.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly made versions of that claim while the United States experiences its largest measles surge in more than 30 years. FactCheck.org found that numerous countries have substantially lower measles incidence than the United States, including countries that have maintained elimination status. Comparing America’s response only against countries experiencing serious outbreaks doesn’t establish that the United States is outperforming the rest of the world. FactCheck.org
THE CLAIM:
A Republican campaign ad accurately describes the effect of the 2025 tax law and Sen. Jon Ossoff’s vote against it.
Bullshit.
FactCheck.org found that the ad cherry-picks provisions from the law and presents them without important context, exaggerating both the effect of Ossoff’s vote and some of the benefits attributed to the legislation. There are legitimate political arguments to have over the law. Selectively describing what it does and pretending you’ve described the whole thing isn’t one of them. FactCheck.org
THE CLAIM:
Trump’s new Greenland agreement gives the United States “permanent control over security” there.
Bullshit.
The agreement expands U.S.-Danish cooperation and American access related to Greenland’s defense, but PolitiFact found that Trump’s description goes considerably beyond what the agreement establishes. Denmark retains sovereignty over Greenland, and the arrangement doesn’t simply hand permanent security control of the territory to the United States. Expanded access is one thing. “Permanent control” is another. PolitiFact
FERRET OUT THE BULLSHIT
Bad information doesn’t get better because somebody repeats it louder.
The Off Script Bullshit Detector is a practical field guide for spotting the tricks buried inside political claims, viral posts, and supposedly impressive statistics.
Subscribers get it free.
Everybody else can grab a copy for $4.95 at the Tom Hicks Media Store.
GET YOUR VERY OWN BULLSHIT DETECTOR
ALSO FROM TOM HICKS MEDIA
Tom’s Number Ones
Six charts. One day in music history.
Panic Room Sports
Smart football coverage with attitude.
Rabbit Ears
Classic television worth remembering.
The Backlot Ghost
Movies, stars and stories from Hollywood’s past.
Lotus Purrspective
Life explained by a tuxedo cat who is absolutely certain she’s smarter than you.
BUY ME A CUP OF TEA
Off Script doesn’t have a corporate newsroom behind it. It has research, caffeine, and one guy who keeps asking inconvenient questions.
If you’d like to help keep it going, buy me a cup of tea.
ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO
If the government gets approval for a monument and then adds a military mission to it, should that trigger a new review?
Tell me what you think.
#OffScript #Trump #WashingtonDC #Arlington #Government #IndependentJournalism