Judge Chutkan sees through the arch's national security ruse
By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta ·
The Trump administration's attempt to rebrand a triumphal arch as a military base to evade legal delays is a transparent abuse of executive power that Judge Tanya Chutkan rightly questioned.
The Trump administration is attempting to treat the law as a suggestion. By rebranding a 250-foot triumphal arch as a military installation, the executive branch is not seeking security. It is seeking a shortcut. Judge Tanya Chutkan was correct to signal a pause on this project. The administration is wrong because it believes a "national security" label can retroactively cure a failure of administrative process.
The rush to bedazzle the city
The government wants to move fast. According to The Washington Post, construction on the arch is scheduled to begin as soon as next week. This urgency is not born of military necessity. It is born of a desire for a visual win.
During a hearing on October 30, Judge Chutkan questioned Justice Department attorney Robert Stander on the timeline. She asked, “What’s the harm to the government to wait 3 or 4 months? What’s the rush to put this arch up?” As reported by CNN, the judge asked if the president's desire was simply to “bedazzle the city.”
The administration's response was a study in desperation. When Stander referenced assassination attempts on Donald Trump, Judge Chutkan noted the arch would not be completed for 3 years. She asked how a monument could possibly deter such threats in the interim. The record shows a government trying to manufacture a crisis to justify a deadline.
The national security pivot
When the "monument" argument failed to move the court, the administration pivoted. Politico reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin submitted court declarations on October 28. They rebranded the arch as a “generational national defense opportunity.”
The new claim is that the arch will serve as a base for snipers and a hub to counter drone attacks. Hegseth argued the structure would have "military utility to support Homeland defense." Mullin added that the Secret Service would use it to increase monitoring of senior officials.
This is the same mechanism used in the Iran-Contra Affair. In that scandal, the Reagan administration invoked national security to bypass legislative prohibitions on funding the Contras. Here, the Trump administration invokes national security to bypass the National Capitol Planning Commission and historic preservation laws. Both use the shield of "security" to evade the constraints of the law.
This pattern is a hallmark of the current executive. In Trump v. Hawaii, the administration used security claims to avoid judicial review of its motivations. This is the same play. The administration treats the "national security" label as a magic word that silences the court.
The failure of the record
The government's legal defense is led by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. He has a history of clashing with judges over the candor of government representations. This is evident in the parallel litigation over the East Potomac municipal golf course.
In that case, District Judge Ana Reyes ordered a halt to renovations. She wrote a 70-page opinion stating the case was "about much more than golf." Judge Reyes has since ordered an inquiry into potential Department of Justice misconduct. The connection is clear: the administration is using the same shifting justifications in both the golf course and the arch cases.
The plaintiffs in the arch case are a group of veterans. They argue the structure would obstruct the sightline from the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington National Cemetery. The Justice Department argues these plaintiffs lack standing because the National Capitol Planning Commission has not finalized plans.
Judge Chutkan was not impressed. She asked, “What would be final agency action... when bulldozers start digging up the ground?” She also noted that the Supreme Court had previously allowed a White House ballroom on national security grounds. However, a ballroom is an interior renovation. A 250-foot arch in a traffic circle is a permanent alteration of the city's skyline.
The government claims the site will attract 22,000 civilian tourists per day. It is difficult to reconcile the image of a sniper base with a high-traffic tourist attraction. One is a military necessity; the other is a photo opportunity.
The administration's argument fails because it is a post hoc rationalization. The arch was proposed as a monument for the 250th anniversary of the United States. It only became a "defense opportunity" once veterans filed a lawsuit. A rule that only exists when the government is sued is not a rule; it is a pretext.
The court must not grant deference to a security claim that is not supported by the administrative record. If the government can call any monument a "sniper base" to avoid a hearing, then the law no longer exists. The arch should remain a sketch on a page until the administration can prove its utility without lying to the court.
Sources
- The Washington Post: Federal judge signals she may halt construction on Trump’s arch
- CNN: Judge asks if Trump’s desire to rush triumphal arch in DC is to ‘bedazzle the city’
- Politico: Hegseth, Mullin rebrand triumphal arch as ‘generational national defense opportunity’
- NPR: Judge orders an inquiry into potential DOJ misconduct in Trump's golf course case