Architectural Freedom vs. Political Mandates

 

“Federal public buildings should be visually identifiable as civic buildings and respect regional, traditional, and classical architectural heritage in order to uplift and beautify public spaces and ennoble the United States and our system of self-government. Such recommendations shall consider appropriate revisions to the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture and procedures for incorporating community input into Federal building design selections.”
Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture – Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2025
 
With President Trump’s reintroduction of the Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture directive, we find ourselves revisiting an issue I first addressed in 2020 and then again in 2023. As I argued in both of those instances, the mandate wasn’t then nor is it now solely about aesthetic preference; it's a continuation of a troubling trend wherein architecture becomes weaponized in the service of cultural and political warfare.
 
In those earlier posts, I discussed how idealogues outside the architectural profession are exploiting the traditional vs. modern binary. These forces cop-opt historicizing designs to fulfill agendas rooted in nativism and the preservation of a narrow cultural identity. I referenced Robert Bevan's Monumental Lies: Culture Wars and the Truth about the Past. In that book, Bevan highlighted the long-standing push for nativist traditionalism under the cloak of "beauty," a narrative the directive clearly calls to mind.

 
Trump’s reissuance of this directive underscores my concern about the political misappropriation of federal architecture. It's not just a matter of style imposition; it is also what the directive signifies to a small but significant base that ominously equates traditional architecture with cultural purity or heritage. Yet, as I said before, not every advocate for classical design aligns with far-right politics, nor does every modernist lean left. Perhaps naively, I prefer to regard beauty in architecture on the basis of its intrinsic qualities, freed from the political motivations that may have biased its shaping.
 
To underscore this point, I can readily cite widely admired federal projects that have embraced architectural diversity without resorting to traditional or classical expressions. For example, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, designed by Maya Lin, uses a modern, minimalist design to evoke profound emotion and remembrance. The National Museum of African American History and Culture by the team of David Adjaye, the Freelon Group (now Perkins & Will), Davis Brody Bond, and SmithGroup reflects its cultural narrative through innovative architecture, earning widespread acclaim. The public has likewise embraced the National September 11 Memorial, featuring a modern design by Michael Arad and Peter Walker, for its poignant and contemporary approach to memorialization.

Vietnam Veterans Memorial (photo courtesy National Park Service, CC BY 2.0 <photo by Oren Rozen, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimeia Commons)

 

National Museum of African American History and Culture (photo by Frank Schulenburg, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

 

National September 11 Memorial & Museum (photo by Paul Sableman, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

At the opposite end of the stylistic continuum, the new Federal Courthouse in Mobile, Alabama (designed by Hartman-Cox Architects and completed in 2018) is a neoclassical design, featuring grand columns and traditional detailing. Community leaders and citizens of Mobile praise the building for its aesthetic appeal, functionality, high energy efficiency (achieving LEED Gold certification), and sourcing of its limestone cladding from a nearby quarry.  

Federal Courthouse, Mobile, AB (photo by By Chris Pruitt - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=146867882)

 
These examples showcase the richness that comes from allowing architectural expression to be as diverse as the nation it serves. They also underscore the importance of context as a necessary yardstick for design, suggesting that federal architecture can and should reflect the unique circumstances and histories of each project’s specific physical and cultural settings. Architects should be able to view their work as a broad spectrum of possibilities and not exclusively through classical or traditional lenses prescribed by politicians.

Ideally, architects will resist the politicization of federal architecture by embracing professional autonomy, promoting inclusive design principles, and advocating for architectural freedom. Education, collaboration with diverse stakeholders, and a commitment to ethical practices are vital to ensuring that our buildings tell the story of a diverse, vibrant nation, and do not function as stand-ins for virulent political rhetoric. These are not “woke” concepts; rather, they are common-sense responses.(1)
 
The directive is a call to action. For my part, I will continue to champion an architecture that is genuinely of its place, time, and people, one that bridges divides as opposed to widening them. Everyone can endeavor to safeguard the pursuit of beauty and common-sense design from political weaponization, ensuring that federal architecture is a reflection of our collective identity and not a divisive nod to a bygone era.
 
As it did when Trump first rolled out this directive in 2020, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) has again voiced its strong opposition, reaffirming its stance that architecture should not be dictated by a uniform style but rather designed to reflect the diverse communities it serves. The AIA's concern is that mandating architectural styles limits innovation and could harm local communities by imposing a one-size-fits-all approach to design.
 
I do want to make it clear that my opposition is not to the use of traditional or classical architectural vocabularies. These styles can offer beauty, functionality, and a sense of continuity with history where appropriate. My concern lies with the extent to which the mandate strips away the possibility for design to evolve and respond innovatively to contemporary contexts.

(1) An article on DesignBoom points out how Trump's directive is in apparent contradiction with the goal of limiting government intervention often promoted by Trump and other conservatives. The article says that while Trump has consistently argued against bureaucratic red tape and advocated for reducing regulations, the directive does the opposite by creating a set of stylistic standards that architects of federal projects must follow.