The federal Commission of Fine Arts is set on Thursday to review plans for a hulking 250-foot “triumphal arch” to celebrate America’s 250th birthday, one of several construction projects President Trump has conjured up in an effort to leave his aesthetic mark on Washington.

Mr. Trump has reason to be optimistic about the fate of the review: He fired all of the panel’s members in October and replaced them with his allies.

His intention is for the arch to rise up from a roundabout near Arlington National Cemetery, across the Potomac River from the Lincoln Memorial. The design prominently features the heavy gold embellishments that have come to be known as a signature Trump style.

The proposed arch, whose cost the administration has not released, carries the feel of a Trump design for another reason: It is simply massive.

Though it is loosely modeled on the Arc de Triomphe, the neoclassical monument in Paris commissioned by Napoleon, the arch Mr. Trump proposes would dwarf that by some 86 feet.

In fact, the proposed arch would be taller than nearly every other monumental arch across the United States and across the world. Here’s a sampling:

Many of the world’s monumental arches are war memorials, such as New Delhi’s India Gate and New York City’s Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Memorial Arch. Some commemorate revolutions, like Mexico City’s Monumento a la Revolución, and others, like Lisbon’s Rua Augusta Arch, symbolize the strength of a people.

Asked in October who the proposed Washington arch would be for, Mr. Trump responded, “Me.”

If built as planned, the arch would remake Washington’s landscape. Its proposed location means it would be in full view when entering or leaving the capital via the Arlington Memorial Bridge. Its proposed height means it would be taller than the Lincoln Memorial and nearly as tall as the U.S. Capitol building.

The White House expects to complete construction before the end of Mr. Trump’s term. But questions remain on how the arch would be built, including who would pay for it.

It remains possible that, like Mr. Trump’s planned 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom, the proposed arch could get caught up in a legal quagmire.

A group of Vietnam War veterans, as well as an architectural historian, have sued in federal court to stop its construction. The lawsuit argues that the arch would require congressional approval under various statutes, including the Commemorative Works Act of 1986, which dictates that a memorial built in the proposed location must be of “pre-eminent historical and lasting significance to the United States.”

Several congressional Democrats filed an amicus brief in support of that lawsuit in March. Washington, the brief states, “is not the President’s backyard to renovate, relandscape, and build in as he sees fit.”

Maine is on the verge of becoming the first state in the nation to slam the brakes on energy-hungry AI data centers, as lawmakers push back against tech giants over fears of higher power bills, strained grids and environmental impact.

The measure, now headed to Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, would pause approvals for data centers requiring more than 20 megawatts of power until October 2027, while a state-appointed council studies their impact on the power grid, energy bills and the environment.

The legislation passed the state’s Democrat-controlled House 79-62 and Senate 21-13, marking one of the most aggressive moves yet against the rapid expansion of data centers tied to artificial intelligence and Big Tech.

Supporters say the pause is needed to protect residents from the massive energy demands of so-called “hyperscale” facilities, which can consume as much electricity as small cities.

SEN BERNIE SANDERS: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS COMING FOR THE WORKING CLASS. WE MUST FIGHT BACK

“It’s not that there’s no place for data centers in Maine,” Democratic Rep. Melanie Sachs, who sponsored the measure, told The Associated Press. “Frankly, the tradeoffs have not been shown to be of benefit to our ratepayers, water usage or community benefit in terms of economic activity.”

Opposition to data centers has been building nationwide as communities raise alarms about strain on power grids, higher electricity bills and heavy water use. Analysts have warned that parts of the U.S. grid could face reliability issues in the coming years if demand continues to surge.

In February, Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduced a bill aimed at ensuring the electricity costs of data centers are not passed on to American consumers.

At least 11 other states are considering restrictions like Maine’s, but Maine’s bill is the first to pass both legislative chambers, potentially setting a precedent.

MAJOR TECH COMPANIES BACK TRUMP PLEDGE TO PAY MORE FOR DATA CENTER ELECTRICITY AHEAD OF SIGNING

Critics argue the move could drive away investment and jobs.

“We think that these data centers could bring good jobs, good opportunities to these regions,” Montana Towers, a policy analyst with the free market Maine Policy Institute, told the AP. “And a lot of these concerns about them are luddite in nature.”

The Trump administration has backed data center expansion as critical to competing with China in artificial intelligence, even as it recently pushed tech companies to commit to covering the cost of new power generation needed to run their facilities.

Mills has not said whether she will sign the bill, though she has sought an exemption for a smaller project already underway that would reuse existing infrastructure.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

If enacted, Maine’s moratorium would serve as a test case for how states balance economic growth against the mounting energy demands of the AI boom.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Americans could be forgiven if they’re unaware that President Trump recently performed one of his most essential tasks and sent his annual budget request to Congress, though months late and stunningly incomplete.

After all, so much else has been dominating the news lately: the Mideast war that Trump promised not to start. Price rises he’d vowed to end. His repeated insults of Pope Leo XIV. His portraying himself as Jesus Christ, then lying about having done so. An incompetent attorney general to fire. And the president’s actual priorities — plans for a $400-million White House ballroom and a massive “Triumphal Arch” nearby!

It’s a lot.

Once again, as in Trump’s first term, the public and press are inattentive to the nation’s fiscal health relative to past years. But that reflects the president’s own disengagement with reconciling spending and revenue — this from a president many Americans voted for based on his purported prowess as a businessman. For decades back to Ronald Reagan’s time, so-called deficit wars in Washington were a big story. Now, even Republicans in Congress complain of Trump’s absence from the fiscal fray as they struggle to belatedly finish this year’s budget work that was due last fall, and to end a weeks-old partial government shutdown, before turning to the budget for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1.

Yet it’s worth paying attention to U.S. budgets even if Trump won’t, for the sake of our children and grandchildren who’ll inherit the bills. In one document, a federal budget reflects the nation’s priorities. And these days, in the perennial guns-versus-butter debate, Trump has made his feelings all too plain.

“We’re fighting wars,” he told a group at the White House on April Fools’ Day. “We can’t take care of day care … Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.”

Forget that Trump swore to end wars. Or that last year, long before he went to war against Iran, he cut $1 trillion over 10 years from Medicaid and other healthcare programs in his misnamed “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Yes, budgets can be boring, especially to a president with a famously short attention span. Trump and many of us Americans are distracted constantly by all the shiny objects he throws at the national consciousness by his words, acts and social media postings at all hours.

Yet the budgetary trend is clear to anyone bothering to look: As president, Trump is once again exacerbating the nation’s unsustainable course of piling up debt. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, among other credible sources, debt is now approaching the highest level in U.S. history, which was reached during World War II. It already surpasses the size of the entire economy and threatens higher borrowing costs and reduced investments.

For all the achievements Trump likes to claim — ending eight wars in a year! — here’s one that’s real: He is on a path to break his own record for the most debt in a single presidential term, $8.4 trillion in Trump 1.0, which was nearly double the increase under President Biden.

Need further proof of Trump’s brazen mendacity? Of course you don’t, but here it is: In the face of the well-documented budget record, Trump declared both this year and last year to a joint session of Congress, on national television, that he would balance the federal budget —“overnight,” he said in February.

The inequitable tax cuts and big spending increases for the military and immigration crackdowns that Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress enacted last year are significantly greater than in his first term, and are driving up the debt despite Republicans’ deep healthcare cuts. Just months after Trump took office, the ratings firm Moody’s downgraded the nation’s sterling credit rating for the first time in more than a century.

And now, in his new budget request, Trump seeks to inflate military spending from under $1 trillion when he regained office to $1.5 trillion, for the biggest year-to-year increase in military budgets since World War II.

This fiscal irresponsibility is happening at the worst possible time. For the last quarter of the 20th century, presidents and Congresses of both parties annually debated how to reduce deficits and several times reached consequential multi-year deals, culminating during the second Clinton term in four straight years of surpluses. (Those surpluses ended — wait for it — with Republicans’ tax cuts and war spending during the George W. Bush administration.)

Politicians back then were moved not just by the deficits of their time — deficits that, as a share of the economy, were less than half what they are now. They also were responding to experts’ warnings of a demographic tsunami by the 2020s: With the aging of the huge baby-boomer population, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would greatly increase even as the workforce whose payroll taxes support those programs shrank. Today the number of people 65 or older is almost three times what it was 50 years ago, and rising.

This reckoning is upon us, though you wouldn’t know it as Trump keeps calling for cutting revenue and spending more for lawless wars, immigration raids and monuments to himself. Barring bipartisan action, in 2033 Social Security’s retirement fund and Medicare’s hospital fund will no longer be able to cover beneficiaries’ full claims, according to their trustees’ annual report, necessitating reduced benefits or shifts of money from other worthy programs.

Trump did put Vice President JD Vance in charge of a “war on fraud.” But that holds about as much promise as Elon Musk’s fiscal fiasco — remember DOGE? — that cost money instead of cutting $2 trillion as promised.

Like other problems, Trump likely will leave the fiscal follies to his successor, who, should he or she win two terms, would preside as Social Security and Medicare become insolvent. I’ve yet to hear any of the early 2028 presidential aspirants — or Trump — address or be asked about that.

Let the debate, belatedly, begin.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes