President Trump on Friday unveiled official architectural renderings for the triumphal arch he plans to add to the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

The proposed monument would stand at one end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge next to the Arlington National Cemetery.

In addition to the president’s post on Truth Social, the plans were released by the Commission on Fine Arts, a federal agency that has review authority over the design and aesthetics of construction within Washington, D.C., and produced by Harrison Design, an architecture, interior and landscape design firm with offices in six U.S. cities, including D.C. The mockup shows a structure very similar to the 3D model that Trump touted at a fundraising dinner at the White House last October.

This model of President Trump’s proposed triumphal arch was shown at a White House press conference on Oct. 15, 2025.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Advertisement

At 250 feet tall, the overall height of the structure is intended to serve as, “a fitting recognition of America’s 250th birthday,” the White House said in an email to NPR.

A monument aimed at honoring what and whom?

The proposed arch bears a striking resemblance to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris — though would stand almost 100 feet taller — and is topped with two golden eagles and a winged, crowned figure reminiscent of the Statue of Liberty (which was gifted to the U.S. by France in 1884.) On one side, the words “One nation under God” appear, with the phrase “Liberty and justice for all” on the other.

The structure would also loom over the nearby Lincoln Memorial — at more than twice the height.

“The Triumphal Arch in Memorial Circle is going to be one of the most iconic landmarks not only in Washington, D.C., but throughout the world,” said White House spokesperson Davis Ingle in an email to NPR. “It will enhance the visitor experience at Arlington National Cemetery for veterans, the families of the fallen, and all Americans alike, serving as a visual reminder of the noble sacrifices borne by so many American heroes throughout our 250 year history so we can enjoy our freedoms today. President Trump will continue to honor our veterans and give the greatest Nation on earth — America — the glory it deserves.”

When asked by CBS political correspondent Ed O’Keefe whom the monument was intended to honor after Trump initially unveiled his plans in October, Trump responded: “Me.” The exchange was captured in a social media video.

A group of Vietnam War veterans launched a lawsuit in February seeking to bar the Trump administration from constructing the arch. The plaintiffs argued the project violates statutes requiring express congressional authorization for the erection of commemorative works or any “building or structure” on federal park grounds in D.C., among other issues.

The Arc de Triomphe in Paris as part of the city’s Christmas celebrations (2007).

Christophe Ena/AP

hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Christophe Ena/AP

“It’s textbook Trump,” said Sue Mobley, director of research at Monument Lab, of the proposed plans for the arch, in an interview with NPR. The nonprofit design studio based in Philadelphia reimagines public art and structures. “It has to be the biggest. That’s the authoritarian impulse.” Trump has repeatedly pushed back on accusations of authoritarianism, rejecting the label of dictator.

Mobley added that she doesn’t think the plans will come to fruition. “It will likely get tied up in court,” she said.

Approval process

The White House said it will “follow all legal requirements” in constructing the triumphal arch. As part of that process, it mentioned the National Park Service’s recent request to present potential designs to the Commission on Fine Arts. The plans are scheduled to be reviewed next week. At this point, that commission is composed entirely of members appointed by Trump. (In October 2025, Trump took the unusual step of firing six sitting members of the commission.) The National Capital Planning Commission, the federal government’s central planning agency for the National Capital Region, is also expected to weigh in on the plans.

The White House said the estimated cost of the project, which it anticipates will draw on a combination of public and private funds, is still being calculated. Harrison Design, the architecture firm behind the plans, did not immediately respond to NPR’s request for information about the price tag.

Multiple D.C. makeover projects

The arch plans are the latest in a series of current and potential architectural interventions from the White House in and around Washington, D.C.

Most dramatically, the administration is pushing for the creation of a $400 million neoclassical ballroom at the White House. A federal appeals court on Saturday temporarily allowed the construction of the ballroom to move forward while the administration challenges a March ruling that it required congressional approval. Whatever the outcome, the historic East Wing has already been demolished to make room for the new structure.

Trump has converted the White House Rose Garden into a stone-covered patio. He aims to shut down The Kennedy Center for two years to facilitate a major renovation (a coalition of groups including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the American Institute of Architects, and the D.C. Preservation League, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in March opposing the plans.) And he has proposed architectural changes to the Washington Dulles International airport through an initiative the Department of Transportation launched late last year to overhaul the Northern Virginia airport. Several prominent architecture firms including Zaha Hadid Architects and Adjaye Associates have submitted proposals.

In August, the president also signed an executive order requiring that new federal buildings with construction budgets of more than $50 million be designed in “classical” or “traditional” styles.

Anastasia Tsioulcas contributed to this story.

Does having an affair with a married co-worker (who is in a loveless marriage, and whose wife is having an affair too, but they’re staying together for their child) make me, morally, a bad person?

That depends on what you believe a “bad” person to be. If your married co-worker and their spouse have both communicated and acknowledged the refined terms of their relationship to each other — that their romantic relationship is over, and that they are both free to pursue connections outside of their marriage while continuing their domestic partnership and performing whatever outer auspices of their relationship to ensure their child has a stable home until they come of age — then your co-worker and their spouse are essentially in an open relationship that prioritizes co-parenting. But the nature of this agreement, and the consequences of actions stemming from it, all depends on whether this agreement is mutually consensual and clear.

The word “morally” carries a weight with different subjective meanings. Generally it refers to undertaking an action in accordance with certain principles or values decided by an individual. So in that sense, what is “moral” in this situation can take on a variety of forms, depending on which definition of what is “right” is prioritized in your own mind.

Oftentimes we decide what is “wrong” for us based on how a certain idea or action makes us feel. That feeling can present in many ways — rumination, a knot in your throat or your chest, an unease in your stomach, the tensing of muscles. The fact that you’re asking this question tells me that something about this situation is likely making you feel a certain way. I invite you to explore what shape that feeling takes, not just in your mind, but in your body.

Instead of obsessively over-rationalizing or avoiding, try making friends with that feeling. If it’s uncomfortable or unsustainable to live with continuously, ask your body why — and how it can help you make decisions that are the kindest possible to your nervous system.

I would encourage you to get more clarity from your co-worker on the terms of their marriage, and exactly how open and honest they and their wife have been with each other. Have they both acknowledged to each other that they are seeing other people? If so, does their agreement have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” clause, or is your co-worker being asked to give details on the who, when, or how?

If one party isn’t as aware of what’s going on as the other party, this isn’t an objectively “right” or “wrong” vignette, per se. But it does mean that your new partner may come with some baggage, and perhaps with some growth opportunities in the area of communication. Ethical open relationships (ethical meaning different from morality, meaning more about a general societal consensus around what’s most evolved versus an individual’s codes for behavior) take a lot of maturity, humility, honesty and willingness to constantly grow. Taking on a partner in an open marriage, especially if a child and mutual source of income are involved, will likely present a certain requirement of effort for your heart and mind. And I would contend that even if you’ve already set a mental boundary that this relationship will be short-term or temporary, or purely sexual, chances are you’ll still have to undertake a degree of risk tolerance and emotional navigation through it, given the unique circumstances of the situation. Are you comfortable taking that on? Only you can answer this question for yourself.

Goth Shakira wears a Miss Claire Sullivan corset and skirt, Shushu/Tong shoes, Blumarine earring, Hirotaka earring, Pianegonda ring, Xeno underwear and stylist’s own collar.

The most important question here becomes: Is this a situation that is sustainable for you? Are you comfortable with the degree of honesty present among all three people involved in this (four, counting the child)? If there’s something that bothers you about it, what is it exactly that leaves you unsettled? Sitting with these questions will lead you to the best course of action for you, because you are the only person who has to live with you at the end of the day.

And if you were my friend, what I would say to you is this — are you truly infatuated with your co-worker, or do you just see them 40 hours a week? Consistency and proximity, especially in the professional context of teamwork, collaboration and problem-solving, can make a work connection feel like it has more potential for romantic intimacy, depth and longevity than it actually does. Dating your co-worker can be hard (there’s no workplace escape from your personal life if you get into a fight, and one or both of you can find your material stability threatened if the romantic relationship sours). Dating someone with a child can be hard. Dating someone in an open marriage can be hard. In your mind, body and heart, is your connection with this person worth what it comes with? Considering all angles of the situation through the lens of your own well-being first and foremost will give you all the answers you need.