When a President Redesigns the Capital

The last time Washington DC faced a threat of this scale to its architecture, the British Army was holding the torches.

That's not a pundit's hot take—it's the considered judgment of Philip Kennicott, the longtime architecture critic of The Washington Post. And when you look at what's already happened, and what's planned, it's harder to dismiss than it sounds.

What's Already Changed—and What's Coming

The White House East Wing has been demolished to make way for a ballroom. The Rose Garden has been remade. The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is shuttered for two years of renovations—and Donald Trump's name has already been bolted onto its facade.

That's just the beginning. On the drawing board: a 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery, a plan to repaint the exterior of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, and a sculpture park along the Potomac. Lawsuits have been filed. Preservationists are alarmed.

The arch, in particular, crystallizes what's at stake. Washington DC is deliberately low-slung. No skyscrapers. The Capitol dome and the Washington Monument dominate the skyline by design. A 76-meter arch would be among the tallest structures in the city—and it would sit directly behind the Lincoln Memorial, in one of the most symbolically loaded sightlines in American civic life.

A City Built on Intention

Washington isn't Chicago or Boston—cities that grew organically, block by block, deal by deal. It was conceived whole. In 1791, designer Pierre Charles L'Enfant laid a grid of neighborhood streets and then draped sweeping diagonal avenues across it, connecting civic focal points: the Capitol, the White House, the monuments. The result was a city where the geometry itself carries meaning—where long vistas down grand boulevards were meant to evoke a republic's ambitions.

For more than a century, that vision has been protected by formal design review. Committees of professional architects, landscape designers, and planners—including one body dating to 1910—have scrutinized proposed changes, pushed back on bad ideas, and improved good ones. Past presidents have modified the White House and its surroundings. None have simply bypassed the process.

Sponsored

Advertise with Us

[email protected]

Sponsored

Trump has. He's stacked the review committees with loyalists, including, according to Kennicott, a 26-year-old personal assistant with no discernible design expertise. The committees still exist on paper. In practice, they've become rubber stamps.

The Case For, the Case Against

The preservationist case is straightforward: these changes are largely irreversible, they're being made without genuine expert input, and they reflect one man's aesthetic preferences rather than any broader civic consensus. Kennicott invokes ancient Rome, where incoming emperors would swap the faces on their predecessors' statues—a constant retrofitting of the symbolic landscape to serve whoever held power. It made for spectacle. It made for a poor historical record.

But there's a real counterargument, and it deserves engagement. Trump won two presidential elections. His properties are global tourist attractions. The Eiffel Tower was widely mocked before it became beloved. The Statue of Liberty had its skeptics. Is it possible that a triumphal arch on the Potomac, derided today, becomes a landmark that future generations can't imagine the city without?

Kennicott wrestles with this honestly. His answer isn't that the arch will definitely be ugly or fail. It's that the process matters as much as the outcome. Great civic architecture usually emerges from friction—from designers being pushed, challenged, and improved by expert review. What's being lost isn't just aesthetic control. It's the institutional memory of how to make good decisions about shared space.

The Precedent Problem

Here's what may matter most in the long run: Trump isn't just building things. He's laying out a roadmap.

If a president can unilaterally demolish parts of the White House, rename national cultural institutions, commission a triumphal arch, and pack review committees with unqualified loyalists—all without meaningful resistance—then every future president inherits that playbook. The next administration, regardless of party, will know exactly how much is possible when the guardrails are gone.

Kennicott draws a pointed distinction between the symbolism at play. Triumphal arches are the architecture of monarchy. They celebrate military conquest and imperial power. American civic design has historically been allergic to that aesthetic—deliberately so. The Lincoln Memorial is a temple, yes, but it enshrines a president who preserved a union, not one who conquered enemies. The Washington Monument is an obelisk, austere and abstract. The iconography matters.

What does it mean that this particular form—the triumphal arch—is the one being proposed? And what does it mean that fewer people seem bothered by the monarchical connotations than might have been the case a generation ago?