Bulwark Takes - Trump’s New Defense Of The Arch Is INCREDIBLY Stupid

Episode Date: September 21, 2026

Sam Stein and Will Saletan take a look at Donald Trump’s latest architectural fever dream: a 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington Cemetery that Trump says will double as a “top grade Military Complex,” complete with drones and snipers. They dig into the bizarre location, the questionable military rationale and Trump’s claim that the project came at the “strong request” of the military. As Sam and Will point out, this is an enormous armed monument sitting near Reagan National Airport, the Pentagon and Arlington Cemetery. What could possibly go wrong?Then they turn to Trump’s escalating crackdown on the press. CNN, MS NOW and Politico lost White House credentials after Trump objected to their coverage, and Republicans defended the move. And if you think the press should simply accept this as the new normal, Sam has a story from the Obama years that offers a different lesson.

All right, hey, everyone. It's me, Sam Stein again with my man, my partner in Sunday afternoon YouTube crime, Will Salatin. Well, how are you doing? Oh, Sam, I'm doing all right, buddy. How are you? I'm holding up. I'm holding up. I just did a recording with Mark Palmeropolis where we talked about all the horrifically awful things happening across the globe, like the deeply foreboding warning signs happening in like Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Europe, etc. I needed a lot of, a little bit of light fare. And so we're going to switch to Donald Trump and the Ark. I mean, what is going on here? Did you see the tweet this morning? I did. I did. Don't you think, Sam, that he's going for the Light Fair? I mean, here he is sitting in this complete S show that he's created all over the world. And so he needed something light. And so he tweeted about the Arch. All right. Let's talk to people about this is Trump on the Arch this morning on True Social. He says

this. At the strong request of the United States military and for national security purposes, I have agreed to convert the magnificent Triumphal Arch planned since the Civil War era many years ago at the receptive circle adjoining the Arlington Memorial Bridge into a top-grade military complex slash triumphal arch to house store and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones plus snipers on both the roof and plaza areas. And additionally have the have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage. There will be no facility like this anywhere in the world. No kidding.

Out of the 59 top cities and capitals, Washington, D.C. is the only one in the world that does not have a triumphal arch, but it will now and by far the greatest of them all. Thank you for this. I have a lot of, I can foresee a lot of problems with this. So many questions, Sam. So many questions. Questions and problems, yes. Do you want to go?

You go with your top question. Can I just start with what's in the, in this, social media and the truth post here. Sure. Yeah. The sniper, we're going to have drones and snipers. We're not going to put them in some hidden place where we can, which is where you would normally put drones and snipers. We're going to build a giant structure right across the river.

We're going to put it 250 feet in the air. We're going to put some snipers up there to shoot at what, Sam? Are they guarding Arlington National Cemetery? What is it like there's, we're going to put drones. Oh, by the way, what's this business about the plaza? We're going to put snipers in the plaza. So we're going to put a giant arch across the river next to Arlington Cemetery and the Potomac and a bridge, nothing else. And we're going to put some snipers down there who they've got nobody to shoot at, Sam.

They're just, we're going to put them on the ground. We're going to put them in the plaza. So, like, who does this? It's completely insane. He says this was the strong request of the military. I mean, that's like on its face completely absurd. No, the military is. Oh, see, I disagree.

Seriously? That part I disagree. Everything else I agree with. Well, first of all, okay, so I'm just trying to think about this in my head. The storage for the ammunition, I assume, is going to be on the columns of the arch, or is it in the top of the arch? Those are going to be like the clips. There's like the clips, the columns are going to put the yellow in there.

Will, like, guns come out of the top of the arch, like a transformer type thing? And the drones, like, are you going to, are they kind of rested on the top, or they tucked underneath and they kind of have a hatch and they come out. But the big question I have or the big issue I have of this beyond the absurdity is, do you know how close this thing is to Reagan? We just got to launch drones. Like literally, planes are flying over this thing all day, every day. We're going to just launch a bunch of drones.

This is like for people who don't know the geography of Washington, D.C., this is, You couldn't do worse in terms of like, this is literally where the plans fly over. They're coming down over the river. You're going to fire, you're going to start at 250 feet. That's where you're starting. And then you're going to fire the drones up from there where we just had like a helicopter plane crash. How many crashes have we had recently over coming into Reagan? I can't even keep track.

It's bad. And I guess, you know, I didn't pick up on the plaza snipers. But the plaza snipers is really an interesting. So you have a circle, an arch. And then obviously everything else is the plaza, right? Like you could go under the arch and through it and you can kind of walk around it. But like, where are they going to be? Just hanging out, like on lawn chairs?

Like what? Do they get their own building? What is it? How does that work? It's like in addition to the crazy location, the size of this thing. He wants this to be 250 feet tall. Anyway, if you go look at the map of the circle that he's trying to put this in. It's like, you know, you've ever seen someone put up a McMansion in a Yor?

where it obviously shouldn't be and it has to be right up against the neighbor. Like this thing, this thing totally will not fit there. I don't know what plaza he's talking about. But like, where are you going to squeeze in these snipers? And in addition to whatever the hell it is, their guard. And again, who are they, you raise the outpom? Who are they possibly firing on? Right.

Like, if we're, if we're depending on this little, on this arch outpost to save Washington, D.C., we are in some serious trouble. Like, we're in some serious trouble. No one's marching down Roslin to get into D.C. And it's like that's not a military need at all. And this is, in addition, so we have the Reagan Airport problem. We have the absurdity of the, it's right next to Arlington Cemetery, which, by the way, it's completely overshadowing.

Those are supposed to be. I have heard politicians talk about how the real monuments, the important monuments, are Arlington, because that's where the fallen are. And instead, Trump's going to try to build this art. triumphal thing, overshadowing all of the people who gave their lives. That's, that's totally gross in itself. But in addition to that, this is about what, two-thirds of a mile from the Pentagon. Why, if you're going to put drones and snipers somewhere, put him at the building that was attacked on 9-11, you know, like, I mean, I'm sure they're there, right? That's like,

they're there, man. There's no way they're not there. Why would you put this idiotic arch, two-thirds of a mile away over the semi- I mean, I don't know where to begin. I'm telling you, the Pentagon at this point, I'm going to put a lot of money on it. They have their own defense. They're going to be fine. I don't think you need this right near the river. And I don't think, you know, maybe. The reason I disagree with you said, the only thing I disagree is this idea that I do think it came at the strong behestim recommendation of the military.

Because it's very transparent. It's happening here because he just did this with the ballroom, which is he gets stimmed in the courts from building these grandiose. sculptures to himself. And then he attaches some national security interest to it so that he can say it's a presidential prerogative and you can't, courts can't intervene within the, you know, my powers offense. And that's, I mean, it's like clear as day what's happening here, right? He's just trying to create a legal fig leaf to go forward with this arch. But it's done so transparently that I have to imagine it fails. There's no one in there right. No judge is going to be like, oh, well, that's a valid point. You just.

He definitely did this legitimately. No. Yeah. Well, wait a minute. What makes you think this is the military actually? I mean, for all the reasons you just gave. You don't think it went like this? Hey, Pete Higgseth.

It's Donald Trump. I need you to make a recommendation that we outfit the arch with snipers. Okay, I'll do it. Boom. Yes. That's exactly. That's exactly. That's why I'm making fun of him saying, oh, it's at the strong request of the military.

Well, that's the strong request of Pete. It was a strong request. Sam, it was exactly what you were. He said it was a strong request to the military, not from the military. It wasn't even a request. It was a boomerang request. It was a boomerang request. Okay.

Well, you know, people don't know this. Actually, there is, and I was intrigued by the post. The post had a story on this. They've been covering it really well, Dan Diamond in particular. You know, there is like a sort of a political basis for building there. I believe it was after World War II. I forget the year, but they were, they had proposed a double, um, pillar monument in that circle significantly smaller.

And they just shelved it because it didn't work. And obviously, you know, you have the Arlington Cemetery there. And then, of course, the Lincoln Memorial on the other side. And they wanted to keep the view unobstructed. And the people who are fighting this have come up with sort of this kind of interesting legal retort to Trump pushing forward with an arch. Just build the columns. Just build those two columns.

We'll be fine with that. I don't think he's going to go for that. Because you can't put drone launchers. No. Yeah, you know, okay, so there was some pre-existing. I read that it was like from the 1920. So it's totally true. I think that's right.

I think that's right. And Trump himself says, oh, from the Civil War. Like, this guy's going back 100, 150 years to invent congressional approval for what he wants to do anyway, which is total BS. But you know what this reminds me of, Sam? Spinal Tap. So a spinal tap, remember when they built the Stonehenge? The Stonehenge? Right.

And like the idea was we're going to build it this size and it turns out to be like this, except this is the reverse, right? These columns, I don't know how big the columns were supposed to be. But people, hold on, we got to remind people about Stonehenge. They want to recreate Stonehenge on the stage. And they create a midget-sized Stonehenge. And a dwarf literally tramples it during the show. And they're like, it's supposed to be much bigger. Totally, totally.

So this arch that he's doing is the reverse of the Stonehenge. Because the, I don't know how big the Collins were supposed to be. But the guy who originally got Trump going on the arch idea, the idea was going to be 60 feet tall. And Trump comes in, first he's got it up to 100. So this is now 250. It's four times the size that it was supposed to be. And even the guy who had this original idea is like, dude, this is not what I had in mind. This is insane what you're doing.

A little gauche. Yeah. It's going to be. It's going to, the Lincoln Memorial, for people that are not familiar, the Lincoln Memorial is like a little less than 100 feet. Okay. This arch is 250 right across. It's absurd. Yeah.

It's absurd. But you know what? You know what's useful when you get to 250 feet? can launch some serious drones. You can get right up there where the planes are, take them out, absolutely. All right. I want to talk one more thing with you. This one, not as funny, although I will maybe have some fun with it, is the press bands that's happening today over the weekend at the White House.

So MS Now, CNN, just for full transparency, I'm a under contract with MS Now. MS now, CNN and Politico, former employee of mine, all lost their credentials this weekend because Trump, wants to change the subject from whatever's happening in Iran and also doesn't like negative coverage as a big baby. They showed up at the White House, couldn't get in, had their badges taken. And I put out a video on Friday when it first happened. I was pretty hot on it, and I remain very hot. I know people don't necessarily think of this as the biggest deal in the world,

and I'm not going to pretend it's like, you know, measles spreading in Lancaster. But it's a big deal to me. And it should be a big deal to a lot of people because, it is not the slippery slope. We are firmly on the slope of authoritarianism. This is it. And when you don't like coverage and you respond by kicking them out of the press pool, you are attacking a bedrock constitutional principle

and you are also not just stifling coverage. You are going to affect future coverage because people are going to be worried about being the next outlet to be kicked out of the pool or the widest, I should say. So, well, before I get to the video of John Brown, ass are defending this in a totally outrageous way. I just, I haven't heard you on this, and I'm just kind of curious what your thoughts are. Oh, absolutely. Will Sumner and I were talking about this yesterday. To me, this straightforward violation of the First Amendment, it's not just that he

banned certain employees, certain publications and took away their credentials. It's that he said quite openly in the Oval Office that he was doing it based on viewpoint. He doesn't like their particular coverage. They're negative towards him. That's an open and show. First Amendment case, I think. I don't know what other grounds you can have to exclude various news organizations from an event, but to exclude it from the White House based on their coverage is negative towards me. I think it's an open-and-shut case. Let's play John.

So, John Barrasso, Senator, was asked about this. John Barrasso, whatever you think of the guy, he will always take the party line that, like, I've never not seen him carry water for the party. Like, literally, you maybe have seen him because you watch one of the stuff. maybe like reliably a hack. This guy, this guy's asked about this on one of these Sunday shows, and this is what he had to say. I do want to ask about President Trump's decision to ban CNN, MS now, and Politico from the White House over there reporting, which he disagrees with. Do you agree with the president's ban, Senator?

We all respect and value the freedom of the press. It's in the Constitution. The president, remember in his first term, he was banned from Twitter. He was banned from Facebook. And I didn't see people come to his defense. So it goes both ways. The press has an obligation to report fairly. And the president doesn't see it happening that way.

Every politician wants fair treatment from the press, as do I, as does the president. There's so much bullshit to unpack in there. First of all, not everyone values free press. Obviously not because Trump just threw these people out, okay? Two, there's a fundamental difference between a social media platform saying, hey, these posts are stirring violence and causing unrest, and we need to suspend the account, which happens all the time, all the time. It's a private company.

They can decide who's on their platform versus a government institution, the White House, saying, we are going to punish out, it's because they have nasty things to say about the president. And three, part of the whole thing is that, you know, it's not about fairness. Like, you know, you have to welcome varying different viewpoints, different outlets, into the White House because that's what freedom of expression and the press is. And so I just found this whole thing outrageous. But then the real thing that really chaps my ass, honestly.

And this happens all the time is what he's essentially saying, saying there is this horrible thing happened to Donald Trump. It was the worst thing possible. His right to free speech was taken away from him. And it was unconstitutional what Twitter and Facebook did. Therefore, it's fine if it happens to you. It's like, what? No, if you cared that much about it, stand on something, buddy. Yeah. Okay. Life is unfair. People are unfair to you. You know what you do as president when the coverage is unfair? You bitch about it. That's okay. I'm the president. I've got the bully pulpit. I'm going to like call them out. I'm like, you're exercising your speech about their speech. That's totally fine. But I think you've got

the fundamental point about the social media platforms versus the government. The First Amendment is about the government. The government cannot abridge speech. You can complain about what Twitter did, what Facebook did. You can complain about the power of big tech. It's nothing compared to the power of the United States government. For the president to say, you can't come into the people's house because I don't like your coverage because it's mean to me, that that is an absolute abuse of freedom of the press. And he said, Sam, he said out loud, hilariously and awfully in that Oval Office remark about it, he said, oh, the ban on the free press. I'm pretty sure I'm quoting that exactly, literally. Oh, the ban on the free press. He knows exactly what he's doing.

He's not high in the ball. All right. We'll leave it there. I just want to make sure we touch base in it because I don't want to start to die. I honestly. Let me say one other thing about this, which is wasn't just Barrasso. You said Barassos is a hack. Let me tell you two other hacks. Steve Scalise, the majority whip in the House. Mike Walts, the UN ambassador, also on the Sunday shows today, also defending Trump banning those news organizations. I mean, I expect it from Waltz, I suppose, because he works for Trump. But Scalese and Barrasso, Jesus Christ, like, come on. I don't want this story to die. I think this is too important because I think it is going to be, it's going to have a chilling effect. And I really, really, really hope. Big, big day on Monday, although for me and you, I suppose, we won't be paying attention because we got a ton of our sins. But on Tuesday, I want to see all the press outlets in the White House. Collective action is so necessary. Do not attend the briefings if they're not there. Do not go and ask questions if nothing has, you know, happened as if everything is normal. It's not normal. I was around in 2009. I was a White House correspondent for Huff Post back

then when Obama's White House kicked Fox News out of a Treasury briefing on TARP, they didn't take their badge and revoke their access to the premises. They just didn't invite them to a briefing that all the other broadcast networks were allowed to be at. And every other TV network said, we're not attending that briefing. And you know what happened? The Obama White House back down because collective action can work. And I hope that's what happens this good run. All right, well, thanks again, buddy. Appreciate your service. And everyone, subscribe to the feed where you get great commentary like this. Also subscribe to our substack page where you can read all the stuff that we produce there. It's really a great way to close the election season. Honestly, we have so

much good content going on there. And finally, if you live in the south, like Columbia, South Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina, Atlanta, Georgia, we have a fall tour going on there. Go to the bulwark.com slash events. You can see all the tickets that's happening in mid-October. I don't have the dates right in front of me. But they're going to be fun. Being with us live is a blast. Hopefully we see some of you there. Come by and say hi.