Washington — The Justice Department and a group of Vietnam War veterans faced off in a Washington, D.C., courtroom on Friday over the fate of the 250-foot arch that President Trump wants to build between Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan heard arguments over a preliminary injunction that would stop the arch’s construction. Attorneys representing three Vietnam veterans and a historian who sued earlier this year to stop construction argued that the project has been rushed and lacks proper congressional approval, while defending their legal standing to bring the suit.
Chutkan said at the outset of the hearing that standing was the most important issue for her to consider. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court found that a group of plaintiffs who brought a similar suit to block the White House ballroom construction likely did not have the legal right to sue.
In court filings, the Justice Department called the plaintiffs’ motions “breathless” and urged Chutkan to follow the Supreme Court’s decision in the White House ballroom case.
Two of the plaintiffs in the case, Vietnam veterans Michael Lemmon and Shaun Byrnes, told Chutkan that the arch construction would impact their experience in visiting graves at Arlington National Cemetery, and said they would be harmed by the arch’s size and purpose.
Lemmon, who appeared via Zoom, told the judge that he found the concept of the arch as a tourist attraction outside of Arlington National Cemetery “almost blasphemous.” Lemmon said he walks from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to the Lincoln Memorial and then to Arlington Cemetery, where he visits the graves of those who served in the Vietnam War.
SAUL LOEB /AFP via Getty Images 
“It means an intense amount to me to be able to continue to do that,” he said, adding that the proposed arch looming over the gravesites “changes the entire experience in a profoundly negative way.”
Byrnes, who appeared in-person, said in a declaration to Chutkan that he would reconsider being buried in Arlington if the arch is built.
The group challenging the project also argued that recent renderings show it would disrupt the symbolic connection between the Lincoln Memorial and the Robert E. Lee Memorial, a carefully considered sightline meant to convey unity after the Civil War.
According to court filings by the Justice Department from earlier this month, construction on the arch could begin as soon as Nov. 5 if the National Capital Planning Commission issues final approval of the plan the same day.
Justice Department attorney Robert Stander asked Chutkan to deny the motion to block the construction and grant a government motion to dismiss the case, arguing that “it’s easier than the ballroom case” to dismiss because of the veterans “deep personal disagreement” at the concept of the Arch.
Stander called the project a “high-priority project” from the White House, and suggested that the plaintiffs should bring their motion again once construction begins.
Chutkan then pushed Stander on the project’s funding, which so far has remained vague.
“I don’t even know who is paying for this thing,” Chutkan said, later adding that she was skeptical to allow construction to begin on the project, and questioned what harm the government would face if the project was temporarily delayed “apart from the executive’s desire to bedazzle the city.”
Chutkan also pressed Stander on the Trump administration’s claim that there are national-security justifications for the arch, which were raised by the government for the first time in a filing Wednesday. She pointed to a declaration from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in which he said the arch could have sensors, communications equipment and defense capabilities and noted that, according to the government, the arch would also host between 2,000 and 22,000 tourists each day.
“We’re not talking about plans for a cafeteria,” the judge said.
Mr. Trump said in a post on Truth Social in September that he converted plans for the arch to make it, in part, a “top grade Military Complex,” equipped with snipers and drones.
The Trump administration also submitted two sworn declarations from top Cabinet officials, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin and Hegseth, stating that the arch would allow for the military and Secret Service to use the structure to defend the nation’s capital against unmanned drone attacks and other potential threats.
In his declaration, Hegseth said that the proposed arch “is a generational national defense opportunity” to stop future threats.
Stander, however, declined to provide more details as to how the arch would provide national-security benefits, but noted that there have been several assassination attempts against Mr. Trump since 2024.
“The arch is somehow intended to prevent assasination attempts against the president?” Chutkan responded. “It’s going to be completed three years from now.”
While the Supreme Court allowed construction to continue on the White House ballroom in part due to what the Trump administration said were national security implications if the project were to be paused, Chutkan said that in this case, the high court’s reasoning “does not make the mention of national security to be talismanic.”
Critics of the project have raised concerns that it could interfere with flights in and out of nearby Ronald Reagan International Airport. Arlington County, adjacent to where the arch would be located on a currently empty traffic circle, sued in federal court in Virginia to block the project.
The Federal Aviation Administration determined that the arch would not pose a hazard to flights coming into and departing from the nearby airport despite those concerns, but the county argued that the arch would necessitate changes to the flight paths of planes traveling in and out of Reagan International Airport, and asked for a federal judge there to order an environmental review of the arch.
