{"id":37875,"date":"2026-06-04T15:32:43","date_gmt":"2026-06-04T14:32:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/?p=37875"},"modified":"2026-06-04T15:43:19","modified_gmt":"2026-06-04T14:43:19","slug":"ein-triumphbogen-ohne-triumph-trump-fuer-mich","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/en\/ein-triumphbogen-ohne-triumph-trump-fuer-mich\/","title":{"rendered":"An Arc of Triumph Without Triumph - Trump: \u201cFor Me\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Asked who his roughly 250 foot tall arch in Washington is being built for, the president answered with two words: for me!<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The triumphal arch is an old form. Roman emperors had them built to celebrate victory, a returning army, a conquered province. Donald Trump now wants to build such an arch in Washington, around 250 feet tall, and it is difficult to identify the victory it is supposed to crown. Asked who the structure was intended for, the president gave the most honest explanation ever attached to this project. For me, he said. That says more about the meaning of the monument than all expert assessments combined ever will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

On Thursday, the plan came up for review before the National Capital Planning Commission, which must determine whether the structure interferes with arriving and departing air traffic or violates laws governing permissible building heights in the capital. Nearly 1,700 public submissions have been filed with the commission, almost all opposing the proposed arch. Staff members of the commission also raised several concerns. Beyond questions of air traffic and height, a document prepared ahead of the meeting stated that there is insufficient information regarding construction materials, planned lighting, and compliance with stormwater drainage regulations. The commission is the federal planning authority for the Washington region, yet Republicans and employees of the president hold the majority of votes within it. So here the representative of the reviewed party evaluates the work of his superior, and one may be curious to see what conclusion is reached by a body subordinate to the builder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The commission is chaired by Will Scharf, who simultaneously serves as White House Staff Secretary. He described the comments from his staff as routine and pointed out in a statement that the commission staff had nevertheless recommended advancing the project. Requests for further information and compliance with existing laws were, according to him, \u201centirely unremarkable in relation to our normal approval process and its timeline.\u201d He expects discussion during the session regarding whether the plans violate the federal Height of Buildings Act. That law generally limits structures in Washington to around 160 feet. An arch measuring 250 feet exceeds that limit by roughly half, and there is something fittingly peculiar about a situation in which a law applying to everyone is set to be exceeded by the very person responsible for enforcing the laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Another federal advisory body, the Commission of Fine Arts, has already approved the proposal after the president made several modest revisions, including abandoning plans for golden lions that had been intended to sit atop the arch. So the extent of the gilding is negotiable, but apparently not the structure itself. Its future nevertheless remains uncertain. The Federal Aviation Administration is reviewing whether the arch presents a hazard to air traffic, an examination required for all structures taller than roughly 200 feet. The arch would stand about one mile from a Pentagon helicopter landing area and about two miles from Ronald Reagan Airport, one of the busiest air hubs in the country. It would be a particular form of grandeur to build a monument to one\u2019s own glory so tall that aircraft must divert around it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A group of Vietnam War veterans has filed suit to block construction. They point to the lack of congressional approval and argue that the arch would obstruct the sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The administration counters that congressional decisions from the 1920s connected to the design of Arlington Memorial Bridge already provide legal authority for construction. A one hundred year old proceeding is thus being retrieved to avoid asking Congress in the present. Many critics argue that the display of grandeur undermines the dignity of the silence owed to the nearby cemetery. This is where the offensive element extends beyond vanity. Anyone who places his self portrait between a grieving nation and its dead puts the fallen into service of his own remembrance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n