Three veteran aviation safety professionals say the Trump administration's planned 250-foot arch near one of the nation's busiest airports would introduce a new hazard to airspace still recovering from a midair collision that killed 67 people.
The proposed monument, set for Memorial Circle on the bridge connecting Washington, D.C., to Arlington, Virginia, would rise roughly two aeronautical miles from the main runway at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Planes pass over that site every 45 to 60 seconds throughout the day, according to Rep. Don Beyer, the Virginia Democrat whose district includes the area. The FAA is still conducting its aeronautical study, and the administration has already announced that preliminary excavation work will begin soon.
That sequence, digging before the safety review is finished, sits at the center of the concern raised by a retired accident investigator, a former airline pilot, and a 30-year FAA veteran who spoke to NPR about the project. Their objections are not abstract. Reagan National opened in 1941 and was designed for roughly 15 million passengers a year. It now handles closer to 25 million, on a single runway, hemmed in by the prohibited airspace surrounding the White House and the U.S. Capitol.
Jeff Guzzetti, a retired accident investigator who worked at both the National Transportation Safety Board and the FAA, described the geometry in blunt terms. A pilot who has just passed the arch's location on the Runway 19 approach, the so-called "River Visual", is roughly 60 seconds from touching down. That approach requires crews to follow the Potomac River and execute a turn as sharp as 40 degrees at less than 500 feet of altitude, all to thread the needle between restricted zones.
Guzzetti told NPR the arch would sit "just a few hundred yards, maybe two or three football fields to the right" of the flight path. He acknowledged it would look "imposing" and "dramatic" but said a competent pilot would not mistake it or drift too close to it under normal conditions.
Normal conditions are the problem. Shawn Pruchnicki, a former airline pilot and accident investigator who now teaches aviation safety at Ohio State University, said he flew the Runway 19 approach many times during his career. He called the arch "inherently dangerous" and framed the risk in terms of what happens when things go wrong, which, at every airport, they do.
Pruchnicki told NPR:
"If everything is working perfectly, I don't see that it would be a significant problem. However, we all know, at all airports, things go wrong all the time."
Guzzetti put it more directly. Asked what the safest course of action would be, he did not hedge:
"The best, and the most basic option, is simply not to build it."
Reagan National's airspace is not a theoretical danger zone. In January 2025, an American Airlines regional jet and an Army Black Hawk helicopter collided near the airport, killing all 67 people involved. The disaster prompted a round of rule changes and new restrictions on helicopter operations in the area.
Those changes have not eliminated the problem. Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, said in a statement that "since the collision, there have been numerous near misses in DCA airspace." Warner and a fellow Virginia Democratic senator introduced legislation the week before the NPR report was published that would cap hourly arrivals at Reagan National and gradually reduce flights over a four-year window starting in 2028. The bill cited an "overburdened runway" and "unsustainable traffic levels."
Then came the early August incident. A military helicopter carrying President Trump briefly flew too close to a passenger jet departing Reagan National. Federal investigators later found that ongoing construction of a White House ballroom had contributed to radio interference, preventing air traffic controllers from hearing a warning about the helicopter's takeoff.
In other words, a construction project near the airport already caused a communication breakdown that put aircraft at risk. The proposed arch would add a 250-foot physical obstacle and construction cranes reaching up to 320 feet, all within the same congested corridor.
Tom Lintner, who worked three decades in aviation safety at the FAA and served as an air traffic controller at New York's LaGuardia Airport, raised a concern that goes beyond the arch itself. He questioned whether the FAA can credibly evaluate a project pushed by the administration that oversees it.
Lintner told NPR:
"Nobody's watching the watchers. In other words, anybody who says, 'Wait a minute, how do we know that's safe?' The answer is, 'Well, the FAA decided it's safe.' But did they? What's the checks and balances?"
His point is structural. The FAA both operates the nation's air traffic control system and regulates aviation safety, a dual role that, in this case, means the agency is evaluating a project championed by the executive branch it answers to. Guzzetti noted that even if the FAA ultimately labels the arch a hazard, the finding is not legally binding. The president could instruct the transportation secretary to issue a waiver.
Guzzetti said plainly that he could see that happening with the current administration.
Lintner performed what he called "back of the envelope" math and published his findings in a Substack post in August. His conclusion: the arch is unlikely to present an altitude problem for commercial airliners but could further complicate airspace for helicopters, which operate below 500 feet in some areas near the airport and as low as 200 feet in others. Given that a helicopter collision already killed 67 people at this airport, that finding deserves more than a back-of-the-envelope dismissal from the agencies responsible.
A preliminary FAA report issued in June concluded the structure would likely not pose a problem as long as blinking red obstruction lights were installed on top. But that was a preliminary finding. The comprehensive aeronautical study remains underway, and it could still result in the arch being labeled a hazard.
Under federal regulations, the FAA must be notified before construction of any proposed structure taller than 200 feet or within a certain slope of airport runways. After conducting its study, the agency issues a determination. The entity behind the construction, in this case, the National Parks Service, then has 60 days to agree to the FAA's conditions, terminate the study, or request further review.
An FAA spokesperson told NPR by email in early September that "the standard obstruction evaluation process is under way." The agency did not respond to questions about whether it faces political pressure from the White House. Pruchnicki estimated such studies generally take several months to nearly a year.
The public comment period for the FAA review closed September 3. The White House told NPR it continues "seeking final approval from all applicable entities." Meanwhile, the administration announced earlier in September that preliminary excavation at Memorial Circle would begin soon, before those approvals are in hand.
Congressional Democrats have lined up against the project. Rep. Beyer told NPR he has not met a single constituent, Republican or Democrat, who wants the arch built. He framed the stakes in visceral terms:
"An enormous number of airplanes come over that site, basically every 45 to 60 seconds all day long 'til 11 at night. Just imagine the disaster that could happen with all of these airplanes coming right across a 250-foot-high arch."
Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois wrote a public letter to the FAA in June urging the agency to "be firm in rejecting any improper or irresponsible pressure from President Trump to prioritize the construction of his gaudy, vanity arch over the safety of the American people." In a statement to NPR, she called it "another golden vanity project" that "would needlessly add a safety risk in one of the most complex airspaces in the country."
An ongoing lawsuit asserts the arch cannot be built without Congressional authorization. The Trump administration denies that claim and has not sought such authorization. The National Capital Planning Commission has granted some preliminary approvals but has not given final sign-off.
The president originally said the arch was for himself. He has since recast it as a tribute to the country's 250th anniversary. The White House has described it as what would become "one of the most iconic landmarks not only in Washington, D.C., but throughout the world." A mockup appeared at the Great American State Fair on the National Mall in July.
For context, the proposed arch would stand 250 feet, less than half the height of the 555-foot Washington Monument, but tall enough to require FAA review and tall enough, in the judgment of three people who spent their careers investigating crashes and managing airspace, to matter.
Lintner's concern about workload deserves its own weight. Reagan National's single runway handles traffic levels far beyond what the airport was designed for. At peak density, controllers may transmit instructions every five to seven seconds. Lintner described the math plainly:
"As the traffic gets denser and denser, you may find controllers having to make transmissions every five, six, seven seconds. There reaches a point where there aren't enough seconds left to make the right decision."
Adding a 250-foot obstacle and its associated construction equipment to that environment does not simplify anything. It adds one more variable for controllers who are already stretched, one more item on approach charts, one more thing that can go wrong when the margin for error is already measured in seconds and football fields.
Guzzetti summed it up without drama:
"This is just adding another hazard. Granted, it might not be significant, but still, it's yet another... opportunity for exposure to something bad happening."
The administration maintains the arch would not pose additional risk. Neither the White House nor the FAA responded to NPR's questions about the specific concerns raised by the three experts. The FAA has not shared a timeline for completing its comprehensive review.
Sixty-seven people died in that airspace eighteen months ago. The experts who spent careers preventing exactly that kind of disaster are asking the government to slow down. Whether anyone in a position of authority is listening remains the open question, and the stakes are not architectural.
