Pete Hegseth Hails Trump’s ‘Great Triumphal Arch’ as a ‘Generational’ Defense Opportunity as DOJ Rules Out Court Testimony

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says President Donald Trump’s proposed “Great Triumphal Arch” represents a “generational national defense opportunity” that could help protect the Homeland from drones and other “evolving threats.” Federal prosecutors, however, say Hegseth should not be expected to answer questions about the project in court.

“It will be utilized as a dual-purpose structure: a major national monument that also incorporates military utility to support Homeland defense,” Hegseth wrote in a declaration filed Wednesday. His statement came as the government faces a lawsuit brought by three Vietnam War veterans and a historic preservationist seeking to halt construction of the arch. 

“The new construction of the Arch — with its strategic location overlooking major national sites and frequented by national officials — offers an opportunity to situate state-of-the-art C-UAS defense capacities in the heart of the NCR [National Capital Region],” Hegseth said. “Its height and strategic location provide enhanced lines of sight for both sensors and personnel, which is critical to C-UAS and other security operations.”

Despite Hegseth’s stated support for the project, the Justice Department said in court filings Wednesday that he would be “unavailable to testify” at a preliminary injunction hearing set for Friday.

The veterans and preservationists suing the administration asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan last week to issue a preliminary injunction by Nov. 4, one day before “construction may start.” They said the order is needed to prevent the project from becoming a ballroom-style “fait accompli.”

The plaintiffs — Michael Lemmon, Shaun Byrnes, Jon Gundersen and architectural historian Calder Loth — are represented by Public Citizen Litigation Group. In an 18-page memorandum filed last Thursday, they argued that the Trump administration is moving “rapidly” toward construction. The National Park Service, they said, indicated in a notice that work at Memorial Circle could begin as soon as Nov. 5.

The plaintiffs are asking Chutkan to block construction with an injunction.

“Defendants have barreled ahead, doing site testing, drawing architectural plans, and seeking approvals from commissions populated by friends of the administration. Yet, throughout this time, Defendants have failed to obtain (or even to seek) approval from the one body that, by law, must authorize the project: Congress,” the memorandum states.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs said they “regularly visit the area” to “honor the service” of “comrades-in-arms who are buried” at Arlington National Cemetery. They contend the proposed arch would cause “profound harm” by disrupting a symbolic landscape with deep personal meaning. The structure would also eliminate an “unobstructed view” along a sight line “designed to represent the unification of the Nation following the Civil War,” they said.

The plaintiffs further contend that the government’s own case assessments show the arch would have “significant adverse effects on more than 40 historical sites.” Despite those findings, they said, officials “have not faltered in their commitment to build the arch.”

ALSO READ: King Charles Joins Bahamas Carnival Fun During Royal Visit

Their filing also challenged what they described as the “sole source of legal authority” cited for the project, which is intended to mark America’s 250th anniversary. The plaintiffs argued that the Act of Feb. 24, 1925, authorizing construction of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, could not reasonably be read to permit “a massive monumental arch to commemorate a national anniversary that, at the time of the statute’s enactment, lay more than a century in the future[.]”

“The bridge was completed over ninety years ago, in accordance with the statutory requirements. And while plans from 1924 included two columns (but not an arch), the Commission that Congress authorized to design the bridge removed them, and the project was completed without them,” the plaintiffs wrote. “Defendants’ contention that the statute authorizes limitless initiation of new Executive projects, at whatever cost, indefinitely into the future, is entirely untethered from the Act’s text.”

Chutkan, appointed by former President Barack Obama, previously oversaw special counsel Jack Smith’s now-dismissed Jan. 6 prosecution of then-candidate Trump. She must now decide whether to stop the administration as it moves to “blaze ahead” with the arch project.

“This Court should enter a preliminary injunction blocking Defendants from beginning construction on Memorial Circle in the hope that they can render the arch a fait accompli before this Court has made a final determination whether Defendants’ project is unlawful,” the memorandum states. It characterized the Supreme Court’s ballroom decision as a “cautionary tale.”

Federal prosecutors countered that an injunction would prevent the government from pursuing what they describe as important security measures. In court filings, they said such an order would “forestall the opportunity for these significant national security benefits and prohibit the government from taking important steps to mitigate an ever-growing threat to the Nation’s capital.” Prosecutors argued Wednesday that the “significant national defense concerns” outlined by Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin outweigh the plaintiffs’ aesthetic objections.

“The security features will be fully integrated into the existing design,” Mullin wrote in his declaration.

The Vietnam Veterans of America, Veterans for America First and several other veterans organizations filed a brief Wednesday backing the administration and supporting construction of the arch. The groups argued that the plaintiffs lack legal standing and do not speak for veterans as a whole.

“This case has been fully briefed on the merits three times,” the Justice Department said in its opposition filing Wednesday. “Plaintiffs now bring yet another breathless emergency motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief to forestall construction of an arch on Memorial Circle. But Plaintiffs’ complaint has grown only weaker with time.”

Matt Naham contributed to this report. 

The post Hegseth swears Trump’s ‘Great Triumphal Arch’ is going to be a ‘generational national defense opportunity’ as DOJ says his testimony in court is out of the question first appeared on Law & Crime.