Trump’s Monuments to Himself

SPEAKER_1 (0:03)

Support for KQED Podcasts comes from Wildlife Conservation Network, bringing conservationists from across the globe to San Francisco at the Mission Bay Conference Center on October 10th. Use code KQED for $10 off. Info at wcnexpo.org.

Support for KQED Podcasts comes from Save the Bay, protecting and restoring San Francisco Bay for 65 years. Community and corporate volunteer opportunities available along the shoreline to help drive positive change. More at save sfbay.org.

SPEAKER_2 (0:39)

You fell in love at First Crunch, and now the Crispy Chicken Crunchwrap Slider is back at Taco Bell. But with a twist, it's crispy all-white meat chicken nuggets inside a slider-sized Crunchwrap. But now you can enjoy them with the kick of Hidden Valley Diablo Ranch, or try the tortilla chip coated nuggets on their own. They're waiting for you. The Crispy Chicken Crunchwrap Slider, a brand new classic, is back. Only at Taco Bell.

Mina Kim (1:04)

Welcome to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. Of all the things the president has on his plate, the war in Iran, high fuel and food prices, steep potential losses for his party in the midterms, what seems to animate Trump the most are his building projects. The latest announcement this week is that his proposed Triumphal Arch on D.C.'s Memorial Circle will now be a military complex, complete with snipers and drones for national security reasons.

And for all the skepticism and unpopularity of the idea, it continues to move forward for now. This hour, we look at how Trump's construction projects are changing the landscape and the reach of executive power and the role of monuments in shaping a collective narrative. Starting us off is Tom Nichols, whose latest piece for the Atlantic is called Trump's Monumental Obsession. Good to have you back, Tom.

Tom Nichols (1:55)

Thanks. Thanks for having me.

Mina Kim (1:57)

So first, talk about why the idea of militarizing the arch has drawn fresh skepticism and pushback from not only you, but retired generals, preservationists, others.

Tom Nichols (2:08)

Because it's crazy. You're talking about putting an arch in the middle of a busy traffic circle, and anybody who's ever been to Washington has probably experienced that particular area between the cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial, and downtown DC., and the idea of filling it with weapons while cars sit in traffic around it every day, and airplanes. By the way, this is another problem, as airplanes fly over it, because it's right in the approach path for Reagan National Airport.

You know, it's just, it's a stupid and dangerous idea, but I also don't think that the president is serious about it. He's saying this because he knows that national security arguments tend to prevail in court, as he did with the ballroom. When people sued to stop him from demolishing the East Wing and building the ballroom, some of his opponents won in court, and there was a tussle back and forth. And then Trump said, no, this is a national security project. It's to build a bunker and an operation center, and the ballroom is just kind of a hat we're putting on top of that national security stuff. And the courts bought it. Supreme Court, all the way down, you know, well, you know, the president gets his way on national security issues.

Mina Kim (3:38)

Yeah. Why did the courts buy it? What does recasting the building project as military infrastructure, and therefore a national security asset, right, help Trump do with the courts and with Congress as well?

Tom Nichols (3:53)

The courts have always, I should say always, since the end of World War II, since the Cold War, when national security became a thing, became a phrase. You know, before World War II, very rare to actually see the phrase national security used anywhere.

And during the Cold War, we created a national security state, and we prioritized national security above a lot of other things, including civil liberties.

And we did it again after 9-11. So when presidents invoke national security, courts kind of wrap that under the president's Article 2 powers, and they become very hesitant to interfere with that because they don't want to interfere with what they think is the president's legitimate sphere of competence and power on that issue. So it's become a thing where presidents, not just Donald Trump, but presidents in the past have said, well, to get through a policy, I really want to get through to matter of national security. And that's kind of meant to snuff out debate about whether the thing involved is actually important or worth the money or even legal. So that's why it happens.

Mina Kim (5:11)

This is also undermining Congress's authority to constrain it at all in a substantive way?