Monument Policy and the Architecture of Power
U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal to erect a gigantic Arc de Triomphe in Washington was viewed by many as yet another grandiose butcontroversial plan by his administration. Architects, historians, and cultural heritage organizations focused primarily on the project’s aesthetics, its size, and its potential to alter the historic character of the American capital. For architect and architectural historian Michael R. Allen, however, the real issue lies elsewhere. In an article for Jacobin, he argues that the Trump Arch is not merely another monument, but a political statement about how those in power perceive history, patriotism, and public space. Equally revealing, however, he considers the inability of its critics to propose a different vision for national monuments.
The plan calls for the construction of an arch approximately 76 meters high over the Arlington Bridge, along the axis connecting the Abraham Lincoln Memorial to Arlington National Cemetery. The inspiration behind the idea is Keatsby Lee, a conservative critic of modern architecture, while Rodney Mims Cook Jr., whom Trump appointed to chair the Commission of Fine Arts, also played a significant role. The project was presented as a monument dedicated to the military victories of the United States, as part of the celebrations marking the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
A symbol of power without real depth
Allen visited the replica of the Arch that was displayed at the “Great American State Fair” in Washington, D.C., and describes a structure that resembled a theme park set more than a national monument. The golden decorative elements, the eagles, the reliefs, and the replica of the Statue of Liberty created, in his view, an image designed to impress but lacking in substantive content.
The same logic, he notes, characterized the entire exhibition, which was dominated by patriotic symbols but lacked any reference to the complex social and historical reality of the United States. Thus, the Arch functions as the permanent expression of this aesthetic: a monument that seeks to project the image of an all-powerful empire, at a time when American power is being tested on the international stage.
Although many have compared the proposal to Albert Speer’s grandiose plans for Nazi Germany, Allen believes the analogy is exaggerated. In his view, Trump’s Arch lacks both the ideological coherence and the symbolic scale of Nazi architectural designs. Instead, he characterizes it as a project that recycles familiar forms without producing new meaning. Its emptiness, he argues, reflects more a political power striving to appear strong than any genuine imperial self-confidence.
Criticism That Offers No Solutions
According to Allen, the most significant problem is not only the project itself, but also the way it is being addressed. Most reactions are limited to attempts to halt construction, without opening a substantive discussion about what form public monuments in a modern democracy should take.
Public debate, he writes, is trapped in issues of urban planning approvals, permits, and procedures, leaving the fundamental question unanswered: how can a public space be designed to express democratic values rather than state power?
This was also evident in the project’s approval process. Although approximately 600 citizens participated in the public consultation and 99.5% of the comments were negative, the Fine Arts Committee unanimously approved the proposal. Similarly, the National Capital Planning Commission also gave the “green light,” while organizations such as the DC Preservation League and the National Trust for Historic Preservation warned that the process proceeded without meaningful public participation. For Allen, this case highlights the limitations of consultation mechanisms when decisions have essentially already been made in advance.
Triumphal Arches and the Weight of History
Allen argues that the debate surrounding Trump’s proposal cannot be separated from the history of the architectural symbol itself. Triumphal arches have never been neutral monuments; from their very inception, they have been associated with the celebration of military victory, imperial power, and political dominance.
A prime example is the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, erected during the reign of Napoleon, a leader who—as the author reminds us—restricted freedom of the press, imprisoned political opponents, and reinstated slavery in the French colonies. An even older model is the Roman Arch of Titus, which glorifies the emperor and his military victory, while for centuries it served as a symbol of political and religious submission.
At the same time, Allen points out that even Washington’s current monumental landscape cannot be considered historically neutral. The federal capital was built with slave labor, and its monuments reflect specific conceptions of power and national identity. That is why he believes the answer cannot simply be to preserve the existing landscape opposite the Trump Arch, but rather a comprehensive reexamination of the way in which the United States chooses to narrate its history.
The Alternative Proposal for Public Space
The author does not limit himself to criticism. In search of a different approach, he refers to the book *Antifascist Architecture* by Andrew Santa Lucia and Daniel Jonas Ross, which examines works that move away from the aesthetics of authoritarianism and seek to express collective, democratic values.
As a prime example, he presents the work of Yugoslav architect Svetlana “Kana” Radević. The monument she designed in 1980 in what is now Montenegro does not glorify a leader or a military victory, but rather the people who lost their lives in the wars associated with the creation of socialist Yugoslavia. Its abstract form, constructed of concrete and local stone, avoids neoclassical references and seeks to blend into the natural landscape rather than impose itself upon it.
From this example, Allen arrives at his main conclusion. He argues that the design of public monuments should not be the exclusive prerogative of government officials or committees of experts. Citizens, he says, must participate meaningfully in decision-making, and the selection of artists should not depend on their prestige or connections.
For him, the controversy surrounding the Trump Arch reveals a broader shortcoming: the absence of a modern democratic conception of public space. The real dilemma, he concludes, is not whether Washington will gain yet another imperial-style monument, but whether the United States can create monuments that tell the story of its citizens rather than glorifying state power and its leaders.
Source: in.gr
