Who Gets to Shape Federal Architecture?

The Trump regime is making a play to dictate federal architecture as part of their effort to remake the federal government and create an authoritarian state. Will we let them?

The Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C (late-modernist architectural style), previously rainbow lit. Photo by Jeffrey Clayton on Unsplash

Architecture is the will of an epoch translated into space - Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

But whose will within any given epoch? The collective will of a citizenry? Of wealthy elites? Of authoritarian strongmen? Of a self-proclaimed master builder bent on remaking the U.S. federal government in his own image?

Trump literally draping his image over federal architecture

Architecture as Trump’s Tool

Since President Trump’s January 20, 2025 memo, Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture, the General Services Administration (GSA) has presumably been revising federal architecture standards to require federal facilities be visually identifiable as civic buildings and respect regional, traditional, and classical architectural heritage in order to uplift and beautify public spaces. The GSA was directed to submit recommendations within 60 days to the White House’s Domestic Policy Council after collecting public comments (including those from the AIA). And on August 28, 2025, executive order (EO), Make Federal Architecture Beautiful Again, was finally issued, requiring a preference for traditional and classical architecture be applied to Federal public buildings.

The EO defines classical architecture as the architectural tradition derived from the forms, principles, and vocabulary of the architecture of Greek and Roman antiquity, and as later developed and expanded upon by various listed Renaissance, Enlightenment, 19th century, and 20th century architects. It encompasses such styles as Neoclassical, Georgian, Federal, Greek Revival, Beaux-Arts, and Art Deco. Traditional architecture includes classical architecture plus historic humanistic architecture such as Gothic, Romanesque, Second Empire, Pueblo Revival, Spanish Colonial, and other Mediterranean styles of architecture historically rooted in various regions of America.

Library of Congress’s John Adams Building, Art Deco style. Image source. Image was originally posted to Flickr by Tim Evanson.

The inclusion of traditional architecture, as well as certain phrases like buildings shall be economical to build, operate, and maintain, and should be accessible to the handicapped may suggest a few public comments had some limited influence on the final EO (even if some of the word choices - like handicapped - are offensive and dehumanizing). However, we should all be clear that this is a top-down edict from the president himself driving the architectural styles of the federal government. Future federal projects as well as some currently underway will be expected to comply.

The EO also establishes the position of senior advisor for architectural design, for an individual with specialized experience in classical architecture, to help develop GSA procedures, advise on architectural standards, and provide guidance during design evaluations or design juries. It will be important to see who ends up filling this position. Also note that it appears Section 5(d) indicates the president himself has final say over any proposed deviations from the preferred architectural styles. This is a classic strongman, authoritarian move.

Distinct from the directive given to the GSA by the above memo and EO, the White House State Ballroom project - classical, grand, and meant to be impressively beautiful - is nevertheless aligned with both of these, reflecting Trump’s aesthetic priorities (renderings released depict an opulent interior with gilded details, reminiscent of Trump’s preferred Louis XIV aesthetic). In this case, though, the project is being overseen by the White House (not the GSA), is apparently being funded by Trump and private donors, and may be trying to skirt the normal approval process involving the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). These and other actions since Trump too office focused on adding his personal brand of opulence to the White House could be seen as an attempt to a) avoid the challenges (legal and other forms of opposition) that may occur in implementing the architectural EO, b) pave the way for the architectural EO, or c) both.

Rendering (by McCrery Architects / the White House) of the ballroom with white and gold walls and trim. Image source.

Trump’s architectural EO comes on the heels of the recent America By Design EO, focused on the digital as opposed to the physical world (better usability and consistent, attractive design for interacting with government services). Both it and the architecture EO arguably complement the regime’s efforts to affect symbolism, rewrite history, and manipulate our experiences of the federal government’s built and digital environments. The digital EO establishes a National Design Studio (NDS) with a Chief Design Officer as it’s head, who is to consult with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in carrying out the studio’s mission. And the director happens to be Russell Vought, one of the key architects of the white Christian nationalist, authoritarian Project 2025.

For those who think characterizations of the Trump administration as a regime bent on authoritarianism hyperbolic, I would respond that you’re not paying attention. You’re not paying attention to the historians, scientists, or federal workers. You’re not paying attention to the regime’s actions - the disappearing of immigrants and American citizens, the near capturing of Congress and intimidation of federal judges, the recent firing of Fed governor Lisa Cook, the dismantling of key federal agencies, their campaign to undermine the next election, taking vengeance on political opponents, deploying armed National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., threatening to send troops into other U.S. cities, and building his own paramilitary force, to name just a few. You’re not even listening to Trump himself:

From 8/25/2025:

From 8/26/2025:

Historian

Heather Cox Richardson

previously noted that Trump’s flurry of executive actions, just by the end of January 2025 alone, were unilateral, instantaneous displays of power (quoting Jonathan Swan of the New York Times) aimed at reasserting his personal stamp on government. By personally dictating the style of courthouses or the layout of websites, the president is arguably venturing beyond normal administrative guidance, into the realm of cultural engineering. This top-down, individually driven, uniform aesthetic transforms the federal government’s identity to mirror one man’s preferences – a hallmark of strongman leadership.

Christina Pagel

, professor of Operational Research in Health Care, UCL, UK, recently provided an overview of her team’s efforts to track the Trump regimes actions since he took office in January, 2025. As of 8/29/2025, they had documented 1,094 authoritarian-like actions falling into the following five categories

• Undermining Democratic Institutions & Rule of Law; Dismantling federal government

• Dismantling Social Protections & Rights; Enrichment & Corruption

• Suppressing Dissent & Controlling Information

• Attacking Science, Environment, Health, Arts & Education

• Aggressive Foreign Policy & Global Destabilisation; Nationalism

Interestingly, neither the architectural memo nor the EO is listed as one of these authoritarian-like actions, but they easily fit under the third and fourth bullets. Using architecture to promote the authoritarian state, from contemporary uses of urban planning and monumentalism in North Korea to the the pyramids of Egyptian Pharaohs, has a long history, stretching far back into antiquity. Some of my own graduate research (see my chapter in the following volume) consisted of examining how the site of Paquimé (in northern Mexico) made use of architecture and sport to help extend its political, social, and economic influence over surrounding areas.

So, let’s briefly cover some of the reasons why architecture has been a common tool of authoritarians, dictators, and other strongmen.

Architecture as Autocracy’s Tool: Common Themes

The following are seven common patterns that emerge from architecture’s use as a tool for autocracy, illustrating why authoritarians often fixate on architecture and its embedded symbolism.

Monumentality and Mass Scales

Authoritarian architecture favors gigantic scale – towering facades, vast plazas, grand axes – that visually dwarf the individual. This isn’t merely aesthetic; it’s psychological. Such scale projects strength and permanence, conditioning citizens to feel the state’s power as awe-inspiring and inevitable. A huge domed hall (whether Speer’s Volkshalle or the U.S. Capitol itself) compels observers to look upward and feel humbled. Totalitarian designs often aim to overwhelm, shrinking the individual while magnifying the state, effectively reframing the relationship between citizen and government as one of insignificance vs. majesty.

The dome of the U.S. Capitol building. While it has a monumental element, there are also cues embedded within the site for public participation, including steps one can sit on and take in the surroundings. See the discussion further below. Photo by Stephen Talas on Unsplash

Hitler embraced monumental classicism on a vast scale, extending beyond the Volkshalle to Speer’s Germania plan for redesigning Berlin as the capital of the Nazi world order. Such monometalism was intended to convey the image of a Thousand-Year Reich. Mussolini bulldozed centuries-old neighborhoods as well as archaeological sites to make way for a grand boulevard through the heart of Rome, linking his offices at the Piazza Venezia to the Colosseum, while providing a stage for military parades evoking Imperial Rome. And for a planned 1942 World’s Fair, Mussolini built an entirely new monumental district in southwest Rome (Esposizione Universale di Roma).

In contrast, democracies use such scale to convey the power of the people as a collective, representing citizens’ shared values around representative government, the constitution, a peaceful transition of power, etc. Trump, however, arguably intends to coopt the monumentality of our federal architecture through his personal brand of opulence to represent his own strength and permanence. And the border wall during his first term, while it never reached the grandeur of his vision, certainly was intended to be a monumental legacy.

Uniform Style and Central Direction

Autocrats impose stylistic uniformity – a single approved aesthetic – across their realm. Such aesthetics have included repetitive neoclassical arches for Mussolini’s fascism, Stalin’s socialist classicism, and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s neo-Ottoman architectural revival. By dictating aesthetic as well as urban organizational consistency, regimes make the environment predictable and controlled. These uniform aesthetics also symbolizes ideological unity, with no dissenting art or architecture allowed. Trump’s actions are in line with these authoritarian traditions. His insistence on classical federal buildings, for instance, redefines beauty as patriotic conformity, rejecting the pluralism of styles that reflects a free, diverse society.

Pyongyang, capital of North Korea. Photo by Thomas Evans on Unsplash

Political scientist James C. Scott noted that high-modernist authoritarian regimes love to standardize and simplify from the center – be it city layouts or architectural styles – to make society legible and easier to control. The tightly controlled urban design of Pyongyang, capital of North Korea, permits no deviations - public space is only for regime spectacles or reverence, not for independent gatherings. Trump’s attempts to centralize design efforts are likely inspired by these various authoritarian examples, with the goal of creating consistency in the physical (and now digital) environmental experiences in line with his authoritarian desire for control.

Linking to a Glorified Past (Mythic Continuity)

Authoritarian aesthetics often look backward, cherry-picking historical styles that bolster the regime’s legitimacy. Neoclassical architecture (a revival of classical Greek and Roman architectural forms) is a favorite because of its long association with grandeur, stability, empire, and authority. By claiming these forms (Classical or architectural forms from other past societies), dictators imply they are the inheritors of an illustrious civilization, helping create an illusion of timelessness. Authoritarian regimes also build museums, monuments, and rituals to propagate a curated account of history that flatters the regime.

For example, China built the Museum of the Communist Party of China near Tiananmen Square to celebrate the Party’s history, while restoring Confucian temples and other heritage sites that bolster a narrative of ancient continuity. By reaffirming China’s ancient civilizational identity while reinforcing Party legitimacy, Beijing is using architecture and site planning to present the Communist regime as the rightful heir of a 5,000 year old civilization. Mussolini used architecture and urban planning to link ancient Rome to modern Italy, embedding his rule in an eternal Roman narrative, and literally paving over history to do so.

The Federal Trade Commission (Apex) Building, with its Classical Revival style fits within Trump’s desired look for federal architecture. Photo by ipse dixit on Unsplash

In Trump’s case, leaning exclusively into classical-European styles implicitly downplays the more pluralistic narratives of American architecture (which include indigenous, African-American, modernist, and other influences). It is a selective memory, as Science Survey put it, masked in the language of national pride and beauty, [Trump’s memo and EO] promote a selective reading of history: elevating a specific Eurocentric tradition as the visual standard of American life. This historical filtering in turn erases the contributions, narratives, and symbolism of other traditions and marginalized groups. If planning as a project of governance represents the story a nation tells itself (in line with the writings of urban planner Leonie Sandercock), then Trump’s memo and EOs are emphasizing a narrative of white, European dominance and legitimacy.

Erasing or Replacing Unwanted History

Beyond celebrating a chosen past, authoritarians literally destroy the physical remnants of eras, people, and/or narratives they reject. This can mean demolition of various aspects of the built environment along with their associated symbolism and connections to the past (e.g., Stalin demolishing churches, ISIS blowing up heritage sites, and China razing Uyghur historic districts). Though it doesn’t have to full scale demolition - maybe it’s simply renaming streets, painting over images, or airbrushing people out of photos.

One example from the Trump regime includes literally removing the portrait of ex-Joint Chiefs Chair Mark Milley from the Pentagon’s Hall of Chiefs in 2025 as retribution. That symbolic act – an image removed from a gallery – is akin to rewriting the story told by that space. It’s a small-scale example of how authoritarians handle physical symbols of the past that don’t suit them. Scrubbing references to trans individuals, Navajo code talkers, and other minorities from various government websites, as well as reinstalling Confederate statues are yet more examples of Trump erasing and replacing history that doesn’t reflect his authoritarian, white Christin nationalist, cishet vision of America. The regime is trying to control the narrative of who we are as a nation.

Who get’s to tell the story of who we are as a nation? Photo by Darren Nunis on Unsplash

Trump’s architectural EO could lead to modern federal buildings (even historically important ones from the mid-20th century) being refaced or demolished. Indeed, Trump’s former advisor on the Commission of Fine Arts, Justin Shubow, openly called Brutalism aesthetic pollution to be torn down and replaced with neoclassical architecture. This suggests an agenda not just of building anew, but of actively purging the undesirable architectural legacy – much as autocrats do when they topple old monuments or bulldoze neighborhoods that don’t align with their vision. Nor would I expect to see gender neutral restrooms in any federal project under the Trump regime.

Cult of Personality and Personalized Aesthetics

Authoritarian design often serves to aggrandize the leader personally. Whether it’s giant portraits and statues (Mao’s portrait on Tiananmen, Turkmenistan’s golden statues of Turkmenbashi) or whole buildings as vanity projects (Saddam Hussein’s image, name, and initials inscribed on the stone facades and bricks throughout his Babylon palace), the built environment becomes a constant campaign poster for the regime’s greatness. Pyongyang was rebuilt as a city of vast processional boulevards and heroic monuments. Giant bronze statues of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il tower over Mansu Hill, and citizens are required to bow to them.

Trump, famously image-conscious, is known for gold-plated aesthetics and slapping his name on towers. As president, he hasn’t defaced federal buildings with the Trump label (yet), but his call for a specific style of grandeur in federal architecture and creation of a White House-controlled design studio for the digital experience reflects that same personal imprint on the visual landscape. He’s certainly imprinting his preferred aesthetic onto America’s most iconic residence through such actions as covering the Oval Office in gold, paving over the Rose Garden with white stone, and adding the massive White House ballroom in Gilded Age style. Such moves blur the line between state property and personal brand – a trait common in autocracies where the dictator’s personal aesthetic becomes state style.

A man and his fragile ego gaudily personified in built form. Photo by Tiziano Brignoli on Unsplash

In his book The Edifice Complex, Deyan Sudjic argues that powerful individuals employ architecture to glorify themselves and secure their legacy – such construction is a means by which the egotism of the individual is expressed in its most naked form - the Edifice Complex. Sudjic would likely view Trump’s federal architectural EO and the White House renovations as an expression of his own edifice complex - the developer-turned-president wanting to imprint federal facilities (and other parts of our skylines) with his preferred style. Even if Trump plaques aren’t placed on the walls, this is his legacy of bringing back beauty. And dictators often use architecture as a substitute for achievements because pouring concrete is easier than solving social issues (even if Infrastructure Week never manifested itself during Trump’s first term).

Intimidation and Suppression of Dissent

Urban design under authoritarian regimes often aims to preempt or stifle opposition. Broad boulevards (like Paris under Napoleon III) can be militarily tactical – hard for protesters to barricade and easy for tanks to roll through. Huge ceremonial squares are conducive to regime rallies but less hospitable to spontaneous protests (which look small and isolated in spaces that dwarf the human scale). In democratic design, public spaces embed cues for public participating and invite assembly and free expression. Even Washington D.C.’s National Mall, monumental as it is, serves as a civic space hosting protests and performances of political reckoning. Subtle cues for public participation are embedded throughout, such as the steps in front of the Lincoln Memorial for sitting and taking in the surroundings or the Mall’s user-friendly wayfinding system.

In contrast, authoritarian space is deliberately one-sided and focused on the regime’s message. As Science Survey succinctly noted, in authoritarian regimes, architecture is often monumental in scale and rigid in meaning, designed to project permanence and demand reverence…constructed to impose, not to invite. Dissent, as well as celebration of any prosocial symbolism, is overwhelmed by these settings. In Trump’s case, critics worry that his architectural dictates and digital design control will chill the diversity of expression and voices of dissent. Federal buildings that might have incorporated local art or memorials to our diverse heritage could become uniform marble temples draped with images of the dear leader and lacking space for community voices, just as federal websites may no longer highlight initiatives and histories in conflict with the administration’s narrative.

Trump banner hanging on the USDA:

And this narrative includes appeals to white nationalism and white supremacy. As Michael Allen has observed, Trump’s architectural rhetoric closely tracks with white nationalist endorsements of the architectural, engineering and aesthetic value that befits the progeny of European architecture . . . stunningly, classically, beautiful, befitting a world power and source of freedom. Though the nuanced complexities associated with the history of classicism, such as harmony and its association with challenging authority in early U.S. history, are ignored by white nationalists. They focus instead on a simple set of visual traits (columns, pendants, fenestration patterns, etc.) to help convey ideas of symmetry and order conducive to authoritarian, white nationalist narratives.

In extreme cases, regimes will rebuild cities or create artificial environments to align with ideological fiction. While the U.S. is far from, say, Turkmenistan’s bizarre city of Ashgabat (all white marble and empty boulevards), even small steps toward federal aesthetic regulation raise the specter of government engaging in narrative control via design. Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat has pointed out how law and order strongmen also seek to control the cultural sphere to prevent anything subversive taking root - acting as the art and order strongman as well. Therefore we shouldn’t dismiss the fight over architecture as trivial culture-war fodder; it is central to how a society defines itself, its history, and whose voices matter. Which is why architecture is integral to how authoritarians cement power. The visuals of a regime help shape and enable its longevity.

So Where Do We Go From Here?

Under a healthy democracy, many voices shape our physical and digital landscapes, balancing practical needs, creative expression, and public values. The Trump regime is pushing an alternative path, one where the state (represented by Trump and his lieutenants) decree what is beautiful, proper, and true for everyone. Above I’ve drawn parallels between Trump’s aesthetic authoritarianism and the practices of infamous strongmen. The resemblance is not coincidental – built environments have always been political. As Science Survey noted, architecture is never just about aesthetics; it is about power, history, and control. When a strongman and/or the state dictate aesthetics from the top, it is essentially asserting control over collective memory and identity, and we should be wary.

Standing up to these trends doesn’t mean rejecting classical architecture per se or opposing user-friendly websites. It means rejecting the notion of a single mandated worldview. The Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture (first drafted in 1962 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan) wisely stated that the development of an official style must be avoided. Design must flow from the architectural profession to the Government, and not vice versa. In a free society, our buildings should reflect our time, our diversity, and the openness of our institutions. But Trump’s EO, Make Federal Architecture Beautiful Again, is one more step in the narrowing of democratic space in the United States, redefining American identity through a rigid, authoritarian lens. If we value democracy, we must also value pluralism in architecture and design by allowing federal employees, local communities, and multiple designers to contribute, rather than obeying a strongman’s edicts for specific architectural styles and aesthetics.

The battle over federal architecture and design may seem esoteric compared to more pressing crises, but it’s emblematic of the larger struggle between democratic inclusion and authoritarian uniformity playing out in the U.S. right now. If we permit a strongman to tailor the story of who we are and what we value unilaterally, we risk losing control of our own narrative as a nation. I urge readers, architects and other AEC Industry professionals, public servants, and citizens to pay attention to these moves. They are the signs of a mindset viewing power as absolute – down to dictating pediment details on a courthouse. In a democracy, even architecture should invite debate, not impose dogma.

Photo by Mick Haupt on Unsplash

Call to Action: Ultimately, preserving democratic values means actively opposing authoritarian aesthetics. Professional organizations, historians, firms, and individual designers must continue pushing back to keep American architecture free from political litmus tests. Other professional organizations should follow the AIA’s lead in formally stating their opposition to the regime’s actions (though arguably even more forcefully). Other actions include refusing to work on such aesthetically mandated projects (and I think this could be more powerful than many realize), publicly noting who ends up doing the work, writing op-eds and articles for various outlets, speaking out on podcasts, testifying before various government bodies and committees, contacting your members of Congress (frequently) as well as attending their town halls, joining your fellow citizens in the streets peacefully protesting, and finding ways to build broad coalitions with the goal of resisting the authoritarian actions of this regime. Hopefully some lawyers will also get involved to challenge the constitutionality of these two executive orders.

The public should also recognize that design matters: the spaces where we live, work, and access services influence how we feel about our government and nation. Do we want spaces that encourage us to participate and question – or spaces that wordlessly command us to revere and obey? The answer will shape not just skylines and websites, but the very character of our nation going forward. As Science Survey aptly put it, architecture is slow to change but fast to signal intent. The intent behind the regime’s actions seems clear – and it’s on all of us to decide if we accept that direction or insist on a different vision – one that validates democracy and is as complex, open, and diverse as the American people themselves.

A vision where the will of America’s diverse citizenry is translated into our federal spaces.

As I’ll probably also end up sharing this via my LinkedIn newsletter, here’s your moment of humor, courtesy of

Ann Telnaes

.

Trump's fascist fetish