As we enter into the final months of the first year in Donald Trump’s second presidency, America has witnessed many renovations of historical monuments and the generation of new architectural plans for Washington D.C.. With the Aug. 28, 2025 Executive Order “Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again,” the second Trump Administration has stated, 

“Applicable Federal public buildings should uplift and beautify public spaces, inspire the human spirit, ennoble the United States, and command respect from the general public. They should also be visually identifiable as civic buildings and, as appropriate, respect regional architectural heritage. Architecture — particularly traditional and classical architecture — that meets the criteria set forth in this subsection is the preferred architecture for applicable Federal public buildings.  In the District of Columbia, classical architecture shall be the preferred and default architecture for Federal public buildings absent exceptional factors necessitating another kind of architecture.”

This executive order references mid-20th century reports concerning the distaste of the American public with contemporary modern architecture, and in response, it is clear that the federal government is choosing to establish itself through neoclassical architecture. I can agree that neoclassical architecture is an aesthetically pleasing style, and I can also agree that the goals of this quote have been framed as beneficial. In considering this understanding of federal architecture, I must remain cautious. I would like to put this executive order in conversation with another project proposed by the Trump administration that shares the same aesthetic leaning.

This executive order, again for the promotion of neoclassical architecture, is one of Trump’s clear intentions to use artistic expression as a vehicle to establish his power. Establishing a national form of architecture is akin to an establishment of a national language, as architecture is the visual language of the city and the public space. With such reforms to federal architecture, of which many buildings are already in neoclassical style, the Trump administration’s goal is to make a space that speaks a certain language. I think that it is important that we recognize the origins of this style. Classical architecture comes from the Greek and Roman empires, and neoclassical architecture was born during the Italian Renaissance and continued throughout the late 19th century. Many 20th century countries continued to utilize neoclassical forms and language in the buildings they decided to erect for their political monuments. It is in the compositional and material language that many leaders have chosen to represent their values. 

Neoclassical architectural programs have been adapted and preserved very specifically in the early and mid-20th century to recall architectural values of nationhood. It is this form of architecture that signifies a certain image to the world of a nation’s intentions and goals. In these nations, such as early 20th century France, Germany and Italy the desire to exhibit a form of architecture is not simply to call forward “regional” styles as Trump’s executive order states, but rather they wish to present a mise-en-scene of power, domination and empire. When one thinks of the Colosseum of Rome, they see a lasting monument of power and heritage, but the extent that architecture’s regional significance in the United States as a symbol of American nobility may be a stretch. 

Neoclassical architecture is not uniquely or regionally American, but it is being specifically employed by the Trump administration to project an image of itself as noble, grand and withstanding, just as other leaders have done in the past. These ideas are parallelled in Trump’s ambitious $34 million “Garden of American Heroes.” First conceived in 2021 and recently refinanced with the passing of the “Big Beautiful Bill,” the garden was positioned as a form of nationalist reaction to the protest and to the removal of statues, depicting historical figures. This project’s goal is to remember a certain narrative of American history through the use of monument making. Trump addressed this goal as he states that the space will “reflect the awesome splendor of our country’s timeless exceptionalism.” (Executive Order 13978 of January 18, 2021). The “Garden” has been touted as if it will restore all rifts within America, it is the “answer to this reckless attempt to erase our heroes, values, and entire way of life. On its grounds, the devastation and discord of the moment will be overcome with abiding love of country and lasting patriotism. This is the American way” (Executive Order 13978 January 18, 2021). Placing the actions of protestors and dissenters as anti-American is ironic, yet not a Trump-specific policy.

A garden filled with American heroes may seem like a generous and beautiful idea, one filled with patriotism and the promise of funding the arts of America. I personally love Aretha Franklin and Norman Rockwell, and would love to see them immortalized in an artist’s vision, purely for public view. However, the idea of a “Garden of American Heroes” would necessitate a critical lens of American history, certainly for figures such as Harriet Tubman. However, Trump’s effort of beautification cannot stray from the narrative of his nationalism. In the application for this exhibition, an applicant cannot aspire to show or reference promotion for political, religious or ideological points of view. They also cannot show support for diversity equity and inclusion initiatives, environmentalism and advocate for social action, nor can they support “specific” public policies or legislation. This is an incredibly vague set of instructions that can be purposefully adjusted, should the administration dislike certain pieces. How must we portray Civil Rights activists, environmental activists, abolitionists and artists if we cannot speak about their impact in the very nature of the statue they will be remembered with? 

The National Garden of American Heroes Grant Submission instructions give quite a bit of guidance for the applying artists. First, the submission instructions state that “the statue should be in the classical style, lifelike and created from marble, granite, bronze, copper or brass.” (National Garden of American Heroes: Statues, 20250701-UG, 6). Once again following the classical ideas of aesthetics, the Trump administration insists on control. Having specificities may not delineate control, however, in instances where freedom is given to the artists, we the nation have created masterpieces of memorial art. I think no better contrast is the Vietnam War Memorial by Maya Lin, offered as an understanding of space and the human feelings of the military involvement in Vietnam. This “Garden” of American portraiture restrains many artists into a form of sculpture without allowing them whole artistic agency. Additionally, the specifications for the construction of these sculptures dictate the exact nature of the experience the public should have while seeing the works. 

While on a pedestal, around three feet in height, the seated sculptures must be a minimum of five feet from head to toe, while standing figures must be taller than six foot six. A standing Abraham Lincoln, if we assume him to be 76 inches, must be then, according to the statue specifications, scaled by a factor of 1.2, making him 91.2 inches tall, atop a 36 inch tall pedestal, until he is 127.2 inches tall or 10.6 feet. These sculptures are monumental in proportion, sat on larger than life supports, giving them an almost striking position over us. As the spectator approaches these statues and crane their necks high up, the marble and bronze would glisten and a sense of superiority is transmitted. A simple sign of human grandeur undoubtedly linked to a warped and fabricated idea of American history that excludes any and all critique. This is the reaction and the response that the Trump administration is goading us into. As we approach these sculptures we have to wonder, “Why marble? Why so large? Why these people? Why not others?” However, there is hope that these sculptures may not even be finished, as the opening dates for the “Garden” have been pushed back previously.

But why exactly do the specific instructions for the creation of the “Garden of American Heroes” matter? Why should the average reader of The Justice consider the aesthetics of neoclassical narratives pushed by Trump and his administration? The answer is quite simple. These are not the only changes being made, they are just the most clear. Trump’s 250th American anniversary project includes construction of the “Independence Arch” alongside a new White House ballroom, supplemented with the redecoration of the Oval Office to include a rococo-gilded look. It seems that this year is one of aesthetics being turned into a language of American imperialism and nationalism. Seeking to reconfigure the past to embolden his populace, Trump and his administration are sending the signals of a false and imagined American strength and nobility through his public projects.

However, there is something that we can all do, and that is to appreciate the preclassical, the modern and the bizarre. In rejecting the Trumpian aesthetics, we can turn to art education of contemporary regional forms of architecture like the Pueblo Revival Architecture, or even learn to appreciate Boston City Hall, despite the concrete. With greater education and wider visibility, the theatre that Trump is conducting quickly becomes clear as a falsified narrative of American history.