By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Three Vietnam War veterans, alongside an architectural historian, have filed a federal lawsuit to halt President Trump’s plan for a 250-foot triumphal arch in Washington D.C. They contend the arch, intended to commemorate the nation’s 250th birthday, would obstruct historically significant sightlines between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The plaintiffs argue the administration requires Congressional approval and federal review panel sign-off before proceeding, citing potential disruption to air traffic as an additional concern. The lawsuit seeks to prevent the project’s construction until these necessary approvals are obtained.
Read the original article here
A proposal for a monumental structure, tentatively dubbed the “Arc de Trump,” has ignited significant controversy, drawing the ire of Vietnam War veterans who argue it would profoundly dishonor their service and sacrifice. This proposed monument, intended to celebrate a particular individual, has inadvertently brought to the forefront deep-seated resentments and a sense of betrayal felt by many who served in Vietnam, a conflict that remains a contentious chapter in American history. The very notion of naming such a grand edifice after a figure who, in their view, has consistently denigrated military personnel and, notably, avoided military service himself, strikes these veterans as a gross affront.
The sentiment among these veterans is that any attempt to build a monument that centers around Donald Trump, particularly one that appropriates the gravitas often associated with memorials to military service, is an act of profound disrespect. For those who endured the horrors of the Vietnam War, the idea that their arduous and often traumatic experiences could be overshadowed or even trivialized by a monument to someone perceived as having evaded his own patriotic duty is deeply galling. This proposed “Arc” is seen not as an honor, but as a deliberate slight, a further attempt by Trump to elevate himself at the expense of those who have genuinely served the nation.
Furthermore, a significant point of contention is the perceived hypocrisy of a leader, who allegedly avoided military service multiple times, seeking to erect monuments or bestow honors upon himself. The narrative that Trump disdains veterans, even referring to them as “suckers and losers” in some accounts, fuels the conviction that his motivations are self-serving rather than genuinely patriotic. For Vietnam veterans, who often faced public scorn and misunderstanding upon their return home, the prospect of a monument championed by someone they believe holds such contempt for their sacrifices is not merely disappointing, it feels like a cruel mockery of their enduring pain and their commitment to country.
The lawsuit highlights a broader pattern of behavior attributed to Donald Trump, where he is seen to seize every opportunity to diminish the value of authentic service and to inflate his own image. The veterans argue that such a monument would devalue the sacrifices of countless individuals who have served with distinction, by association with a person they believe lacks the moral standing to honor them. Their oath to defend the Constitution, a commitment they hold sacred, stands in stark contrast to what they perceive as Trump’s disregard for democratic principles and the very individuals who have upheld them.
Beyond the personal affront, there’s a concern that such projects are symptomatic of a broader desire to reshape public spaces and historical narratives to align with a singular, self-aggrandizing agenda. The potential for such a monument to be a front for illicit financial activities or a tool for money laundering also surfaces in discussions, reflecting a deep distrust of the administration’s motives and the transparency of their projects. The idea that public funds and resources might be diverted to personal glorification, while genuine veterans’ issues may be neglected, is a bitter pill to swallow for those who have dedicated their lives to service.
The argument is also made that historical monuments should reflect genuine national sacrifice and valor, not the ego of a transient political figure. The Vietnam War itself is a complex and painful subject, and for a monument to be built that bypasses the collective memory of the war and its participants in favor of a personal tribute, strikes many as profoundly misguided and disrespectful to the historical record. The veterans are not seeking to erase history, but to ensure it is represented with integrity and honor, a principle they feel is being flagrantly violated by the “Arc de Trump” proposal.
Ultimately, the lawsuit and the vocal opposition from Vietnam veterans represent a stand against what they perceive as a systematic attempt to dilute the meaning of patriotism and service. They believe that by allowing such a monument to be erected, the nation risks validating a narrative that places personal ambition above collective sacrifice, and that this would be a lasting dishonor to every individual who has worn the uniform, particularly those who bore the brunt of conflicts like the Vietnam War.