Trump cites military need for arch. He could be putting armed services in a bad spot.

President Donald Trump’s plans to build an arch in the nation’s capital have faced considerable pushback. Critics contend that the 250-foot-tall monument, which would be nearly 100 feet taller than the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, would obstruct historic views and interfere with the privacy of military funerals at nearby Arlington National Cemetery. They also say it serves no obvious purpose – a point seemingly bolstered by the president’s reply when a reporter asked last year whom the arch was for.“Me,” Mr. Trump said.But recently, Mr. Trump offered a new raison d’être: national security. In a social media post Sunday, the president said the arch would double as a “top grade Military Complex” used to house snipers, ammunition, and drones. This was, he added, “at the strong request of the United States Military, and for National Security purposes.”It’s unlikely, most analysts agree, that Mr. Trump’s latest vision for an up-armored arch will come to fruition. Storing explosive ammunition and stationing snipers in the middle of a busy traffic circle close to other, more secure military locations, including the Pentagon, strikes many observers as simultaneously dangerous and ridiculous. Eric Lee/ReutersVehicles drive near Memorial Circle, the site of President Donald Trump's proposed arch, in Arlington, Virginia, Sept. 8, 2026. “It’s a really bad idea that makes no military sense at all,” says retired Maj. Gen. Steven Lepper, who served as the Air Force’s second-highest-ranking lawyer from 2010 to 2014.And by saying the military asked for it when there is no evidence of this in public statements by the Pentagon, Mr. Trump harms the armed services, Mr. Lepper adds. “It’s an unfair position for the president to put the military in,” he says. “And, quite frankly, an embarrassing position.”The arch is part of Mr. Trump’s effort to leave his mark on the nation’s capital, along with plans for a massive ballroom attached to the White House, and his attempt to remake the Kennedy Center and add his name to it. He has cited national security in support of the ballroom, which will conceal a six-story underground military bunker.When it comes to the arch, there are “a lot” of unanswered questions, including, “What is the threat that these snipers are intended to counter?” asks retired Marine Corps Reserve Col. Mark Cancian, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.He adds that “it’s not a very good place to operate drones,” given its close proximity to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Additionally, given the president’s announcement that explosives and weapons would be stored there, terrorists might see the arch as a rich target.Many observers speculate that Mr. Trump’s suggested military use for the arch was about strengthening his justification for it, Mr. Cancian notes. “It was quite successful for the ballroom,” he says. It could also qualify the arch for defense budget funding.But the project is facing skepticism in Congress as well. Rep. Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican and senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters on Monday that, “There’s a lot of things that we need the military funding for – in fact, we’re short on military funding right now,” according to Politico. “If it was my choice, I wouldn’t put any of that money into the arch.”A government watchdog organization representing three Vietnam War veterans has asked a federal judge to block work on the arch. But judges tend to be more deferential when national security concerns are at stake, says Mr. Lepper, who last year founded a consortium of retired U.S. military lawyers called the Former JAGs Working Group. The group publishes essays, opinions and other material “intended to help identify and measure the likely risks to civilian control of the military, adherence to the rule of law, and the integrity of national security decision-making,” according to its website.It’s possible the idea for a militarized arch could have come from military officials, as Mr. Trump says. But analysts say even if someone did raise the idea, it’s unlikely to have come from a uniformed commander. Deepen your worldviewwith Monitor Highlights.Politics with respectGet political stories with respectful analysis.There‘s a world of new ideas in everyBooks newsletter.There‘s more to life, enrich yours withCulture & Learning weekly.Follow humanity‘s discoveries withScience & Nature stories in your inbox.Gain a spiritual perspectivefrom the stories in your inbox.Want to understand the deeper impact of critical events? Learn the Monitor‘s insight.Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads. But bound by duty, top officers are rendered unable to contradict the president by volunteering that they didn’t suggest – and don’t support – stashing weapons in the arch, Mr. Lepper argues.“What are the choices the military has? Do they embarrass the president by saying that, ‘Despite what the president said, that didn’t come from us?’” he says. “Or do they simply stand mute? That puts the military in a very difficult position.” ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER? LoginReal news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.The Christian Science Monitor was founded in 1908 to lift the standard of journalism and uplift humanity. We aim to “speak the truth in love.” Our goal is not to tell you what to think, but to give you the essential knowledge and understanding to come to your own intelligent conclusions. Join us in this mission by subscribing.