Veterans have established a continuing rush hour protest in the middle of Memorial Circle in Washington, D.C., opposing plans for Donald Trump’s massive arch. Their demonstration began on Memorial Day and features banners, a replica arch, and a plea to “protect and defend the solemnity and honor of this hallowed ground.”

The proposed arch would rise 25 stories, diminishing surrounding monuments and blocking historic sightlines created after the Civil War to represent national healing. Veterans argue that the project would trample the solemn character of Arlington and the Lincoln Memorial.

Retired Army Colonel Ann Wright, a 29 year Special Operations officer, carries an “Over our dead bodies” banner aimed at “Mr. Bonespurs, with five deferments from the military.” The veterans’ spokesperson says the arch would redefine a deeply significant public space around one person’s vanity.

The targeted sightline stretches across the Potomac River by way of Arlington Memorial Bridge. The Lincoln Memorial looks toward Arlington, once the estate of Confederate Robert E. Lee and now burial ground for people from both sides of the Civil War.

That alignment was designed to represent national reconciliation and the triumph of unity over division. Arlington is now the final resting place of more than 400,000 war veterans, including many who died in battle.

Retired Army Major General Paul Eaton called the arch “entirely inappropriate, (bordering) on sacrilege to the men and women buried” at Arlington. Veterans fear the enormous structure would overpower the meaning of their service and sacrifice.

A Gold Star mother whose son is buried at Arlington objected to plans for an observation deck, warning that visitors could take selfies while funerals occur below. “We don’t need tourists overlooking funerals. I’m just appalled,” she said. “We need everybody to speak out about this.”

A federal panel filled with Trump appointees approved plans for the arch in May. In August, the National Park Service determined that the monument would have “adverse effects” on several historic sites.

Aviation experts also warned about placing a 250 foot arch near the runway of one of the nation’s busiest airports. Despite those concerns, Trump’s FAA approved the plans last week.

Vietnam War veterans have sued to block the project, arguing that it lacks congressional authorization and would obstruct Arlington sightlines. Earlier this month, a federal judge ordered the administration to provide at least 48 hours’ notice before conducting project activities while the case remains pending.

Only after that court order, and more than a year after unveiling the project, did Trump produce a national security rationale. He claimed that, at the military’s “strong request,” the arch would become a “top grade Military Complex/ Triumphal Arch.”

Trump said the structure would “house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage.” That would put armed surveillance directly above tourists and nearby memorial grounds.

The national security label matters because courts have historically deferred to presidents on security decisions. Supreme Court rulings cited from 1936, 1988, and 2018 afforded presidents wide latitude and warned against courts second guessing executive national security judgments.

Trump has also invoked national security to defend immigration tactics and tariffs. He called trade relations an “unusual and extraordinary threat to national security,” though the Supreme Court rejected that tariff argument.

The Supreme Court’s ballroom ruling offers another possible path for Trump’s arch. Although Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the ballroom was “likely unlawful,” other conservative justices held that the National Trust for Historic Preservation lacked standing because “mere offense, disagreement, or distaste” did not establish sufficient injury.

That decision undercut legal precedent allowing preservation advocates to sue over historic landmarks. If an organization created by Congress to guard historic monuments cannot challenge such projects, the question becomes who can protect Arlington’s landscape from a president determined to turn solemn national ground into a monument to himself.