How Well Do You Know Washington's Historic Landmarks?

Five questions. The answers may surprise you.

What is the name of the legal review process the National Parks Service completed for the proposed arch?

• Environmental Impact Statement — That's a different federal process. The NPS completed what's called a Section 106 review — a legal requirement before a project affecting historic properties can receive final approval.
• Section 106 review — Correct. A Section 106 review is required by law when a federal undertaking may affect properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
• Historic Preservation Audit — Not quite. The correct term is a Section 106 review — the process mandated by law before the arch can receive final approval from the NCPC.
• National Register Impact Review — Close in spirit, but the legal name is a Section 106 review. It is required before the project can move forward to a final vote by the National Capital Planning Commission.

Which of the following was NOT listed among the sites most directly impacted by the proposed arch?

• Arlington National Cemetery Historic District — Arlington National Cemetery Historic District was actually among the most impacted sites listed in the NPS assessment.
• The Robert E. Lee Memorial — The Robert E. Lee Memorial was specifically named as one of the most impacted sites in the NPS assessment alongside the Lincoln Memorial.
• The Jefferson Memorial — The Jefferson Memorial was not listed among the most directly impacted sites. The NPS assessment named the Arlington Cemetery Historic District, the Robert E. Lee Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial, and the National Mall Site as most affected.
• The National Mall Site — The National Mall Site was specifically named among the most impacted in the NPS assessment — along with Arlington Cemetery, the Robert E. Lee Memorial, and the Lincoln Memorial.

The NPS review considered whether a smaller arch would reduce harm to historic landmarks. What did it find?

• A smaller arch would cause fewer adverse effects — Counterintuitive but wrong. The review found a smaller arch would actually be worse — it would fully obstruct views rather than framing them through a central opening the way the proposed arch does.
• A smaller arch would cause more harm, not less — Correct — and surprising. The NPS review found that a smaller arch would fully obstruct views, while the full-size proposed arch frames them through its central opening.
• A smaller arch would be fully acceptable — The review did not find a smaller arch acceptable. It found the smaller design would be worse because it would fully obstruct views rather than framing them.
• The review was inconclusive on size — The review was actually quite clear: a smaller arch would be more harmful, not less, because it would fully obstruct landmark views instead of framing them through a central opening.

Who must give final approval before the arch can be built?

• The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts — The Commission of Fine Arts already gave the design a green light back in May with a few requested edits. Final approval authority rests with the National Capital Planning Commission.
• The National Capital Planning Commission — Correct. The NCPC — a board made up of President Trump's appointed allies — holds final approval authority. It already approved preliminary plans last month.
• Congress — Congress is not the final approval authority here. That role belongs to the National Capital Planning Commission, a board composed of presidential appointees.
• The National Parks Service — The NPS conducted the required Section 106 review, but it does not hold final approval authority. That belongs to the National Capital Planning Commission.

According to the NPS assessment, which unexpected landmark could also see its views and settings affected by the arch?

• The Capitol Building — The Capitol was not cited in the NPS assessment. The surprise entry on the list was the Pentagon, which the NPS said could see its contributing views, settings, or designed relationships altered.
• The Pentagon — Correct. The NPS assessment specifically flagged the Pentagon as a site where the arch could alter contributing views, settings, or designed relationships — an unexpected addition to the list.
• The White House — The White House was not cited. The NPS flagged the Pentagon as a potential adverse-effect site, noting the arch could alter its contributing views, settings, or designed relationships.
• The National Cathedral — The National Cathedral was not cited. The surprise entry was the Pentagon — the NPS said the arch could alter the views, settings, or designed relationships that contribute to its historic character.

That quiz question about a smaller arch isn't just trivia — it gets at the central tension in this debate. Opponents assumed the solution was straightforward: shrink the arch, reduce the harm. The NPS review found the opposite. A smaller structure would fully block the sight lines it was meant to frame, making the adverse effect on surrounding landmarks worse, not better.

That finding matters because it removes one of the easiest off-ramps from the project. The arch either goes up at full scale — with its documented effects on nearly 40 historic sites — or it doesn't go up at all.

An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the propertys location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association,National Parks Service, assessment

How the Arch Proposal Has Moved Forward

• May 2026 — Commission of Fine Arts approves arch design
• Last month — NCPC approves preliminary plans at board meeting
• Recently — NPS completes Section 106 review, finds adverse effects on nearly 40 sites
• Next step — NCPC final approval vote — no timeline announced

The review process itself raises questions about who ultimately decides. The National Capital Planning Commission — the body that holds final approval authority — is composed of allies appointed by President Trump. The NPS review is a legal requirement, not a veto. Its findings of adverse effects must be documented and considered, but they do not automatically stop the project.

The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, a separate body, had already signed off on the arch design in May, requesting only minor edits. The NCPC followed with preliminary approval last month. The Section 106 review was the last major procedural hurdle before a final vote.

Sites the NPS Flagged vs. Their Historic Significance

Claims and the Record

A smaller arch design would reduce harm to historic landmarks.

Verdict: false

The NPS Section 106 review found the opposite: a smaller arch would fully obstruct landmark views rather than framing them through a central opening, making adverse effects worse.

The NPS review can block the arch from being built.

Verdict: mostly false

The review is required by law and must document adverse effects, but final approval authority rests with the National Capital Planning Commission — a body of presidential appointees that has already approved preliminary plans.

The arch would affect nearly 40 historic sites.

Verdict: true

The NPS Section 106 review identified nearly 40 sites that would be affected, including Arlington National Cemetery, the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, the George Mason Memorial, and potentially the Pentagon.

What Is a Section 106 Review?

A Section 106 review is a legal requirement under the National Historic Preservation Act. Before any federal agency can approve a project that might affect properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, it must consult with stakeholders and document potential adverse effects.

The process is procedural, not prohibitive. An agency finding of adverse effects does not automatically block a project — it requires the agency to consider alternatives and mitigation measures. In this case, the NPS completed the review as a condition before the National Capital Planning Commission could hold a final approval vote.

The NCPC — which holds final approval authority — is composed of members appointed by President Trump. The review's findings of adverse effects on nearly 40 sites will be part of the official record, but they do not constitute a veto over the commission's decision.

What makes this moment significant is not just the arch itself — it is the precedent. Washington's skyline has been governed for more than a century by rules designed to protect the visual relationships between landmarks. The Capitol, the Monument, the Mall: the sight lines between them are considered part of their historic integrity, as much as the stone and steel they are made of.

A 250-foot structure near the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery would enter that conversation permanently. The NPS assessment put nearly 40 historic properties on notice. Whether that record changes any votes on the NCPC is the next question this story will answer — and there is no announced timeline for when that answer arrives.

Follow the Review Process

• National Capital Planning Commission: The NCPC holds final approval authority over the proposed arch. It approved preliminary plans and will vote on final approval.
• Section 106 Review Process: The NPS Section 106 review documenting adverse effects on nearly 40 historic sites is part of the public record for this project.
• National Register of Historic Places: Properties on the National Register receive formal protections that must be considered — and documented — before federally approved projects proceed nearby.

Sources & References

• Primary source: Scripps News — Taylor O'Bier
• National Parks Service — Section 106 review of proposed Triumphal Arch — adverse effects on nearly 40 historic sites near Arlington National Cemetery