Experts: Trump Arch Adds Risk to Busy DC Airspace

Aviation safety experts are warning that President Trump’s proposed 250-foot triumphal arch at Memorial Circle would add another variable to the already notoriously crowded and complicated airspace around Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), where the arch would stand roughly two aeronautical miles — about 3,000 feet — from the airport’s main runway.

While the experts largely agree the arch itself would probably not endanger most aircraft under ideal conditions, they say it introduces a new hazard into an airspace already under intense scrutiny following the January 2025 midair collision that killed 67 people near the airport. The warning comes as the Trump administration signals it will press ahead with preliminary excavation work at the site despite the absence of final federal approvals.

A Knife’s-Edge Approach

According to NPR, the arch would be built at Memorial Circle, a traffic island on the historic bridge connecting Washington, D.C. to Arlington, Va., placing it directly along the primary flight path for landing aircraft at one of the country’s busiest runways.

“An enormous number of airplanes come over that site, basically every 45 to 60 seconds all day long ‘til 11 at night,” Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), who represents that part of Virginia, told NPR. “Just imagine the disaster that could happen with all of these airplanes coming right across a 250-foot-high arch.”

The Trump administration maintains the structure would not pose an additional risk. A preliminary Federal Aviation Administration report said in June that the arch would likely not be an issue as long as it carries blinking red obstruction lights on top, similar to the 555-foot Washington Monument. But the agency is still conducting a more comprehensive aeronautical study, which could lead it to label the arch “a hazard.” An FAA spokesperson told NPR the standard obstruction evaluation process is under way, both for the arch and for construction cranes that the administration has said could reach 320 feet tall.

‘Inherently Dangerous’

The experts NPR interviewed described a nuanced picture. Jeff Guzzetti, a retired accident investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board and the FAA, said the airport’s geometry is the core problem. “It’s a small airport with one runway, nestled in a metropolitan area that’s surrounded by prohibited airspace” near the White House and U.S. Capitol, he said.

He argued the safest course is not to build the arch at all. “This is just adding another hazard,” Guzzetti said. “Granted, it might not be significant, but still, it’s yet another … opportunity for exposure to something bad happening.”

Shawn Pruchnicki, a former airline pilot and accident investigator who now teaches aviation safety at Ohio State University, went further, calling the proposal “inherently dangerous.” “If everything is working perfectly, I don’t see that it would be a significant problem,” he said. “However, we all know, at all airports, things go wrong all the time.”

Why the Airspace Is So Complicated

DCA, which opened in 1941, has long strained against its design limits. The airport was built to accommodate about 15 million passengers a year but now serves closer to 25 million, and because it is federally owned, Congress regulates flight numbers — with lawmakers historically pushing for more service to their home districts. Guzzetti said the airport was “never meant … to have this amount of traffic.”

Tom Lintner, who spent 30 years in aviation safety at the FAA, including as an air traffic controller at New York’s LaGuardia Airport, said higher traffic density leaves controllers with a shrinking margin for error. “As the traffic gets denser and denser, you may find controllers having to make transmissions every five, six, seven seconds,” he said. “There reaches a point where there aren’t enough seconds left to make the right decision.”

The approach to Runway 19, known as the “River Visual,” is especially demanding: pilots must follow the Potomac River and then make a sharp turn — as abrupt as 40 degrees — at low altitude, under 500 feet, to avoid restricted airspace. Guzzetti said an aircraft passing the arch site would be roughly 60 seconds from touchdown.

Lintner is most concerned about helicopters, which operate lower than planes — below 500 feet in some areas and as low as 200 feet in others, beneath the arch’s height. He said the structure “could further complicate the airspace for helicopters,” which he called “the last thing this area needs.” Pruchnicki worried that a plane flying lower than intended and facing strong easterly winds “could easily get blown into” an arch.

After the 2025 Collision

The concerns land against the backdrop of the January 2025 midair collision between an American Airlines regional jet and an Army Black Hawk helicopter that killed 67 people. The NTSB later blamed deep systemic failures, and the crash exposed a pattern of close calls at DCA that prompted a series of rule changes and helicopter restrictions. Critics say those measures remain insufficient.

Last week, Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, both Virginia Democrats, unveiled legislation that would cap arrivals at 28 an hour and gradually eliminate 30 flight slots by 2032, citing an “overburdened runway” and “unsustainable traffic levels.” “Since the collision, there have been numerous near misses in DCA airspace,” Warner said in a statement.

Earlier in September, veterans and military families rallied against the arch, arguing it would disrupt burials at Arlington National Cemetery. Speaking to The Independent, retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton called the plans “entirely inappropriate and border on sacrilege.” A Gold Star mother, Karen Meredith, said, “We don’t need tourists overlooking funerals. I’m just appalled.”

Questions of Oversight

Even if the FAA issues a determination of hazard, its conclusion is not legally binding, because the agency lacks land-use authority over the site. Guzzetti suggested the administration could sidestep an adverse finding. “The president can simply instruct his [transportation secretary] to write a waiver for that, to ignore that,” he said.

Under federal regulations, the FAA must be notified before construction of any proposed structure — a building, cell tower or crane — that would stand either over 200 feet tall or within a certain slope of airport runways. The agency then conducts what is known as an aeronautical study to determine whether the object would constitute a hazard. If the FAA identifies one, the project’s sponsor has 60 days to accept conditions, terminate the study or request further review, a stage that can include negotiation or proposed mitigations.

The FAA both operates the national air traffic control system and regulates aviation safety — a dual role that critics say is ripe for conflict of interest. “Nobody’s watching the watchers,” Lintner said. “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?”

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) wrote to the FAA in June urging it to reject what she called improper political pressure, and told NPR the project “would needlessly add a safety risk in one of the most complex airspaces in the country.” The White House has not responded to questions about perceived pressure, and has repeatedly described the arch as destined to be “one of the most iconic landmarks not only in Washington, D.C., but throughout the world.”

What’s Next

The FAA’s public comment period for the arch ended Sept. 3. The National Capital Planning Commission, which has granted some preliminary green lights, is poised to consider the structure for final approval in the coming months. The arch has not yet received that approval, and an ongoing lawsuit argues it cannot be built without congressional authorization — something the administration denies and has not sought.

Guzzetti said the FAA would ideally ensure that mitigations such as red lights, clear labeling on aeronautical charts and monitoring of pilot complaints are put in place. “We all know that aviation involves risks any time you defy gravity,” he said. “But it’s managing that risk which is the trick.”

For residents and safety advocates, the central question remains whether the project will receive that same scrutiny — or whether the arch will rise with the margin for error at DCA shrinking beneath it.