Virginia and Washington, DC, have launched a legal challenge against President Donald Trump’s plan to build a huge triumphal arch near the Lincoln Memorial. The lawsuit seeks to stop construction and warns that the project could cause serious harm to both areas.
The case was filed on Saturday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones and DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb say the project is unlawful and should not move ahead without proper review.
Their 45-page complaint argues that federal officials have rushed the plan. It also says they failed to work closely with local leaders before taking steps toward approval.
The proposed arch would rise 250 feet above the ground. The Trump administration first announced the project in October 2025. It would stand between Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial, near some of the most important sites in the capital region.
The planned structure would be twice as tall as the Lincoln Memorial. Its size and location have raised concerns about traffic, public costs and the effect on the surrounding area.
The two jurisdictions say construction could begin as soon as next week. They warn that the short timeline could leave them with little time to prepare for the impact.
Traffic is one of the main concerns in the lawsuit. Many people travel between Virginia and Washington, DC, for work, school and other daily needs. Construction near the proposed site could add delays and put more pressure on roads in the area.
The attorneys general argue that both jurisdictions would need to take quick and costly steps to assess the risks. They may also need to plan ways to manage traffic and reduce other effects linked to the project.
The complaint says these costs could be severe and impossible to recover. It also argues that federal officials did not properly consider the likely burden on local governments.
The lawsuit further claims that officials failed to consult with Virginia and DC during the approval process. The attorneys general describe the process as rushed and say the decision to approve the arch appeared to have been made before local concerns were fully considered.
They want the court to intervene before construction begins. Their aim is to prevent harm that could become harder to address once work is underway.
The White House and the Interior Department were contacted for comment on Saturday. Neither had responded by the time the report was published.
Trump has previously defended the arch and discussed plans for military features. He described it as a military complex that would hold weapons and snipers.
However, the latest design does not include those features. The proposed structure is due to be reviewed by the National Capital Planning Commission, which considers major projects in the Washington area.
The design review and the court case could both affect the next steps for the project. The lawsuit does not mean construction has been permanently blocked, but it creates another legal hurdle for the administration.
US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan has ordered both sides to discuss the case and agree on a proposed schedule for their court filings. The judge set a deadline of Saturday evening for the parties to submit a plan for briefing the request for a temporary restraining order.
A temporary restraining order could pause construction while the court reviews the legal arguments. Such a step may be important because work could begin within days.
The court will need to consider the claims made by Virginia and DC, along with the government’s response. The decision could determine whether construction can proceed while the wider dispute continues.
The case also highlights the tension between federal plans for major projects and the concerns of nearby governments. Virginia and DC argue that the effects on roads, public spending and local communities make their involvement essential.
The future of Trump’s proposed arch now depends on several steps. These include the court’s decision on the request to halt construction and the review of the design by the planning commission. Until those matters advance, the project faces continued legal uncertainty.
