Full Breakdown
Advisory Council Terminates Section 106 Review for Trump’s Proposed Triumph Arch
By Drooid · · How we work
Termination of Historic Preservation Review
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) formally ended the federally required Section 106 consultation on President Donald Trump’s 250-foot triumphal arch. In a letter to the National Park Service, the council announced it would no longer pursue agreement with preservation officials, removing a key legal hurdle for the project.
Legal and Preservation Background
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act obliges federal agencies to consult with state, tribal and local parties when a project may affect historic properties. The National Park Service warned that the arch would obstruct the sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery and could affect more than 40 historic sites. Because the consultation could not be resolved, the ACHP exercised its authority to terminate the process.
Key Figures
- Donald Trump – President and proponent of the arch.
- Travis Voyles – Vice chair of the ACHP, author of the termination notice.
- Bryan Bedford – FAA Administrator overseeing the aviation safety review.
- Doug Burgum – Interior Secretary slated to receive the council’s final comments.
- Don Beyer – Virginia U.S. Representative critical of the arch’s military component.
Data & Statistics
- Height: 250 ft (76 m).
- Impact: obstruction of views between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery; adverse effects on over 40 historic sites.
- FAA lighting requirement: an “eternal flame” plus floodlights delivering at least 15 foot-candles (161.46 lux) over the top third of the arch.
- Proximity to Reagan Washington National Airport: ~3,000 ft, within primary approach and departure corridors.
Official Statements & Responses
The ACHP justified termination by citing “significant public interest” and the NPS assessment that further consultation would not achieve the project’s goals. The council will forward its comments to the Interior Department by October 7. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is expected to make a determination, after which the National Capital Planning Commission will hold a final vote in early November.
Criticism & Opposition
Preservation experts and local officials condemned the termination. Charles Birnbaum of the Cultural Landscape Foundation called the move “boundary busting” and an “outright lie.” Representative Don Beyer described the plan to house drones and ammunition as “stupid, dangerous, and unworkable,” urging a new FAA safety analysis. Veterans’ groups have filed lawsuits asserting the arch would destroy the historic sightline, arguing the project violates preservation law.
FAA Aviation Safety Review
FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford emphasized that the agency applied the same obstruction-evaluation standards used for all projects, with no political interference. The review mandated an eternal flame and floodlights but omitted the usual red obstruction lights required for structures over 200 ft near airports. Bedford noted the study did not address the arch’s proposed military functions.
What’s Next
- October 7 (scheduled): ACHP’s final comments are to be delivered to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.
- Early November: The National Capital Planning Commission is slated to vote on the arch, a decision that would precede any ground-breaking.
Legal challenges from preservation and veterans’ groups remain pending.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources agree the ACHP terminated the Section 106 review, but they differ on the legal ramifications. Some analysts anticipate lawsuits, while others note that the law permits unilateral termination when parties cannot reach agreement. No court rulings have yet clarified whether the termination itself violates the National Historic Preservation Act.