President Donald Trump's push for sweeping architectural changes to Washington, D.C. has drawn sharp condemnation from The New York Times, with former architecture critic Paul Goldberger delivering a scathing assessment of the president's proposed monuments and design directives. Goldberger, a Pulitzer Prize–winning critic who has written extensively on American urban design and the architecture of the nation's capital, framed the proposals as a direct challenge to the planning principles that have governed Washington's monumental core since the L'Enfant Plan of 1791 and the McMillan Plan of 1902.

In an opinion piece published on Sunday, Goldberger dismissed Trump's demand for an "Arc de Trump" — a proposed 250-foot triumphal arch — as both absurd and potentially damaging to the capital's historic landscape. At 250 feet, the structure would rival the height of the Capitol dome and stand well above the strict building-height limits that have shaped Washington's low skyline for more than a century under the Height of Buildings Act of 1910.

"The proposed 'Arc de Trump' in Washington is less a monument than a gaudy construction the height of a skyscraper," Goldberger wrote. "A travesty that, if built, would dramatically change the landscape of the nation's capital."

The arch has also drawn opposition from federal agencies and veterans groups. A National Park Service assessment identified 37 historic sites across Washington that would be harmed by the structure. Veterans have also raised concerns that the arch's planned observation deck could allow tourists to overlook private funerals at Arlington National Cemetery. Such proposals would ordinarily face review by the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission, the bodies that have historically vetted major changes to the capital's civic landscape.

Goldberger suggested that the widespread criticism may be driving Trump's urgency to advance the project quickly.

"This is probably why President Trump is so eager to get it made as fast as he can," Goldberger wrote. "It would be an unavoidable monument to a presidency and a man whom many Americans would rather not honor so conspicuously, if at all. He understands that once it is there, it will be hard for anyone to make it go away."

The critic also targeted Trump's broader design ambitions for the capital, including directives to apply gold paint to bronze statues and to renovate the Eisenhower Executive Office Building to match the White House. The Eisenhower Executive Office Building, a designated National Historic Landmark completed in 1888, is widely regarded as one of the finest surviving examples of French Second Empire architecture in the country. Goldberger characterized these initiatives as inherently tacky "fiascos."

"It will look cheap," he wrote. "It will be effectively ruined."