Trump Wants To Arm His Dc Arch. Experts See A Threat.

President Donald Trump’s declaration that his proposed Washington triumphal arch, replete with drones and a weapons arsenal, will protect the city is coming under heavy fire from experts in munitions and terrorism.

The arch is more likely to become a high-value target for terrorists on the scale of the 1983 Beirut bombing of U.S. soldiers or the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, a former brigadier general told a federal judge in a court declaration Tuesday.

Retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson's argument flips the script on the Defense Department's portrayal of the planned military arch, a towering, 250-foot monument planned in a traffic circle on the edge of Washington’s National Mall, as a necessary fixture to protect the capital from terrorism and acts of war.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has previously told the court the arch is a “generational national defense opportunity.”

Anderson’s warning was part of a salvo of court filings Tuesday from opponents of the arch, including from the attorneys general of Virginia and the District of Columbia, asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to extend an injunction currently stopping the administration from beginning construction. Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, temporarily blocked construction of the arch last week just before the Trump administration planned to break ground. But she’s considering a longer-term stay.

In one declaration, Donell Harvin, a homeland security and terrorism expert from Georgetown University, said the arch creates a "hardened military target" and that the plan to store munitions and explosives at the monument complicates emergency response in the event of a terrorist attack.

"Emergency services would struggle to reach civilians in need if the military were actively defending the Arch during an attack," Harvin wrote.

Arch construction would also impede a key emergency evacuation route from the city, in addition to being costly for state and local governments, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones (D) and District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb (D) told the court Tuesday.

Other state and local experts implied the administration has failed to plan for the scale of disruption and risk the construction and monument would cause.

The arch and its vicinity could experience between 2,000 and 22,000 visitors, pedestrians and bicyclists per day, according to estimates from the National Park Service. Nearby Arlington National Cemetery averages 4 million visitors each year, according to the Office of Army Cemeteries.

The administration has until Monday to make its case against a longer injunction.

The Pentagon deferred comment to the White House, which did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The triumphal arch is a centerpiece of the president’s effort to revamp the nation’s capital and leave his own architectural legacy in the city. He first announced plans for it last year, pointing to it as a symbol of the nation’s military prowess and to himself.

The president added the military arsenal component in September, but his administration has not publicly released details for how the tourist attraction would double as a military facility.

Hegseth told the court it would serve a dual purpose — "a major national monument that also incorporates military utility to support Homeland defense.” The administration has said it presented more information on the military aspect of the monument to the court in sealed filings.

Council of the District of Columbia Chair Phil Mendelson raised concerns about the potential dangers of the arch as an arsenal during a hearing before the National Capital Planning Commission last week. The military details are critical in deciding whether the arch should be built on that location, he said.

The commission, stocked with Trump allies, approved the arch nonetheless, saying it need not review the military aspects of the arch, which were withheld for security reasons.

In Anderson’s filing to the court Wednesday, the former brigadier general said the arch in its proposed location couldn't possibly comply with the Defense Department's general safety rules that determine storage of military explosives and munitions, such as setbacks from other buildings or potential hazards, as well as fencing and patrols to distance the facilities from the public.

“It would be wholly inappropriate to use the Arch for storage of ammunition, explosives, and drones (including any related explosives) in such close proximity to civilians, whether those visiting the arch, the surrounding tourist attractions, or passing by on foot, bicycle, or car traffic,” he wrote.

But Hegseth told the court last month the monument would serve as a sentinel location and its height could “support authorized protective-overwatch and counter-sniper personnel by improving observational, situational awareness and coordination with other security elements.”

Legal cases opposing the arch on the basis that it circumvented Congress have been combined under Judge Chutkan. They include opposition from Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian, as well as from the District of Columbia and Virginia. 

Arlington County, Virginia, which surrounds the proposed arch location has also sued to block the arch for failing to follow federal environmental review law.

And on Tuesday, President John F. Kennedy’s family brought another lawsuit to stop the arch, arguing it would cast a shadow over the assassinated president’s memorial in Arlington National Cemetery and shatter its solemnity.

Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.