Committee on Design

Fellow Colleagues,

Once again, we are confronted with a renewed push to mandate Neoclassical architecture for federal buildings. While the AIA should continue to oppose any attempt to impose a single aesthetic on our federal architecture, we must also recognize this initiative for what it truly is: a distraction.

Donald Trump has a long and well-documented history of disregarding architects, both as professionals and as a discipline. His 2020 executive order, "Promoting Beautiful Federal Architecture," was less about fostering meaningful design and more about exerting control-dictating aesthetics in a way that ignores context, innovation, and functionality. While this order was revoked under the Biden administration, its revival is yet another example of Trump's tendency to weaponize design for political posturing rather than public service.

This is not surprising given Trump's history with architecture:

• Disdain for Architects & the AIA – His 2020 executive order attempted to override the expertise of architects, imposing a singular aesthetic on federal buildings while dismissing the profession's role in shaping the built environment. After his election in 2016, Trump also reacted negatively to the AIA's initial statement of cooperation, which was later retracted due to backlash from architects who saw his policies as hostile to design excellence and inclusivity.

• The Bonwit Teller Incident (1980) – One of Trump's earliest acts of disregard for architecture came when he demolished the Bonwit Teller building in New York to make way for Trump Tower. Despite promising to donate its Art Deco bas-reliefs to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, he ordered them destroyed to cut costs. This act outraged preservationists and architects alike, setting a precedent for his disregard for architectural history.

• His Own Narcissistic Design Beliefs – Trump has consistently acted as though he is a better designer than trained architects. His comments on modern architecture have been dismissive, often reducing it to political correctness rather than recognizing its role in advancing sustainability, innovation, and the needs of contemporary society. He sees architecture primarily as a branding exercise, valuing spectacle and opulence over thoughtful, context-driven design.

• Trump's Record of Not Paying Architects – His disdain extends beyond aesthetics to outright exploitation. There are numerous accounts of architects, engineers, and contractors who have worked on Trump projects only to be stiffed on payment. One notable example is Architectural Design Associates, a firm that worked on one of Trump's casinos in the 1990s and was forced into financial hardship after Trump refused to pay them. Similarly, many contractors who worked on his developments have shared stories of endless legal battles to recover unpaid fees. His business model has long been to exploit professionals, often forcing them into settlements for less than they were owed.

• Trump Tower & Other Projects – The late architect Der Scutt, who designed Trump Tower, later distanced himself from the project, frustrated by Trump's demands for flashy marketing-driven changes rather than thoughtful design. Trump has repeatedly clashed with architects and preservationists, notably during the redevelopment of the Old Post Office Pavilion into Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., where his modifications disregarded architectural integrity in favor of excessive branding.

• Attacks on Modern Architecture – His administration's efforts to mandate Neoclassicism were rooted in a reactionary rejection of modernism rather than an appreciation for architectural excellence. His rhetoric around "ugly" federal buildings attempted to force a singular aesthetic preference onto public architecture, ignoring the diverse needs and regional contexts architects consider essential.

This latest push for Neoclassical architecture is not a genuine architectural debate-it's political theater. It serves as a distraction from more significant, more urgent issues: the modernization of federal infrastructure, climate resilience, technological advancements in design, and the broader threats to democratic institutions that impact procurement and public engagement in architecture.

The AIA and the broader architectural community should call this effort out for what it is-a calculated distraction-and remain focused on advocating for policies that truly serve the public good. We should oppose any attempt to impose a single mandated style, but we must also recognize the bigger game at play: Trump's continued effort to undermine professional expertise while using architecture as a political weapon.

I'd like your thoughts and look forward to a productive discussion.

Thank you, Arthur, for your thoughtful and well-articulated response. Your discussion of architecture as more than mere ornamentation-its role as a reflection of our values, aspirations, and identity-is deeply insightful and a reminder of why design matters beyond aesthetics. I fully agree that architecture should not be reduced to a façade, nor should it be confined to a single historical style that ignores the rich complexity of culture, innovation, and function.

However, I urge us to recognize that while this Neoclassical mandate is indeed an ill-conceived imposition on architectural creativity, the larger and more pressing issue is how it fits into Trump's broader authoritarian tendencies. His efforts to control architectural style are not just about buildings; they are about controlling narratives, reinforcing power structures, and, most importantly, distracting from the real dangers he poses to democracy. If he is successful in reshaping the country through authoritarian means, the significance of architectural integrity-something we as architects hold dear-will become secondary to the erosion of fundamental freedoms.

History provides stark warnings. Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Franco, and even Louis XVI all manipulated architecture to serve their regimes, often using Neoclassical or monumental styles to project power and control. Hitler, in particular, had a well-documented obsession with Neoclassicism, using it as a visual reinforcement of his ideology. His collaboration with Albert Speer sought to create an architecture of intimidation and permanence-a reflection of a worldview where architecture was subjugated to authoritarian rule.

These historical precedents should remind us that architecture does not exist in a vacuum. While we debate the implications of this proposal within the context of design philosophy, we must not lose sight of the broader issue: Trump's long-standing pattern of undermining institutions, disregarding expertise, and manipulating cultural symbols for political gain. His fixation on architecture is not about design excellence; it is about power, spectacle, and distraction.

As architects, we must resist the urge to get lost in the details of style debates when the very profession-and the democracy that allows it to thrive-is under threat. If we allow ourselves to be sidetracked, we risk focusing on the aesthetics of the theater while missing the fact that the stage itself is burning.

Again, I appreciate your insights into the importance of authenticity in architecture. That same authenticity must extend to our response-recognizing that this debate is not just about buildings but about the broader trajectory of our society.

Gentlemen, thank you for this commentary, I appreciate depth of your commitment to our vocation. I would be careful when we start to use language such as authoritarianism and threats to democracy. That only feeds into the president's narrative and supports his cause.

President Trump only cares about the façade because from his perspective it's all about image, the substance doesn't matter. He's a salesman and to him, projecting that image to get what he wants is all that matters.

Instead of talking about how his mandates are authoritarian and anti-democratic, we should focus on how this takes away our sense of community and our freedoms to reflect that community in our government buildings. The other side of this is that we, as architects, have to actually care about context in all our work, not just portfolio projects. Creating livable places to work and play is crucial to being respected as authorities on architecture.

Our best defense to the commandeering attempts of politicians is establishing and reinforcing the ideals of the profession and making a commitment to excellence in pursuit of those ideals.

If you disagree with the client's vision for his or her project(s), don't work for that client. If he or she wanted carpet in every room, how many editorials would you write about it? If you can't accept constraints, find other projects to express your vision of architecture. These tantrums only contribute to the irrelevancy of our profession.

Arthur and Charles,

You have each said some things with which I agree and some things with which I disagree. I'll focus on the things with which I agree and expound upon them:

"The integrity of honoring a client's wishes in high regard" is important. Agreed. I've worked with architects whose arrogance and self-importance was so ridiculously inflated, they believed it was their role to correct the client's perceptions and objectives, whether the client believed that was the architect's role or not. And when those clients resisted their "persuasion," they actively and covertly went about undermining the client's objectives, considering himself or herself to be so superior, their actions were necessary to "save the client from himself." This is one of the attitudes among architects that causes many homeowners, builders, and developers to distrust architects. If it weren't for the hegemony of architectural practice acts, very few of us would be working as architects. If I disagree with a client's success factors for a project, I can choose not to work for that client.

"Superficial architecture…pretentious…and hollow façades" are to be avoided. Agreed. There's no shortage of poorly designed modernist buildings, Victorian buildings, or buildings of any other style. The style is not the determining factor-it's the talent of the architect.

"Authentic architecture ought to resonate with the emotions, narratives, and histories" of its context. Agreed. One of the key factors in the context in which federal buildings exist is the mind of the public and the specific character of the buildings that evoke the philosophies, permanence, and grandeur of the United States of America. And in 2025, the people who fund, view, and use these buildings are represented by Donald Trump. His perception of the "emotions, narratives, and histories", as the people's representative is important to understand and implement. I'm tempted to believe a lot of architects are afraid of the neoclassical vocabulary, not knowing how to deploy it effectively; or they believed the nonsense from their architecture schoolteachers who taught that all neoclassicism is oppressive and was relevant only to classical Greece; or they just hate Donald Trump and they'll disagree if he says it's Friday. Andrea Palladio did not live in classical Greece, yet his buildings carry forward and transform the classical vocabulary and we still admire them. Even the Romans didn't live in classical Greece, yet Roman monuments adopted, adapted, and transformed the classical Greek orders into something more representative of the context of the Roman Republic. Today, the world is not at all what it was before World War II, yet many of us still design using pre-war construction methods and architectural vocabularies. Even the best examples of the International Modernist style were built half a century ago, making it and many other Modernist styles historical styles, yet we still build Miesian buildings for government and commerce and find them perfectly relevant. Style is not the issue; it is context and talent. And this conversation reminds me far too much of The Fountainhead-which is not a book I like or find accurate in its portrayal of most architects. But I have to laugh whenever the arrogance and style fetishes of architects Rand depicted show up in real life.

"President Trump does not own the government." Agreed. We, the people, own the government; Constitutionally, the President is the CEO. And if we, as architects, want to work for an organization and simultaneously contradict or undermine the CEO, good luck getting work from that organization. Trump was elected by the people and, as long as he is President, he is the voice of the people. I don't recall many architects protesting other Executive Branch preferences, such as sustainability requirements that go beyond the energy code. For that matter, every building code is a constraint on the architect-where is the outrage? Every budget, site boundary, zoning restriction, and CC&R are design constraints-where are the editorials?

And my final point is on the subject of context: If you ask the average American to point out buildings they find portray the spirit of our nation, I believe most will point out the White House, the U.S. Capitol building, the Lincoln Memorial, the Supreme Court building, or perhaps some other Washington, D.C. monument on the back of currency. To most Americans, these buildings portray permanence, strength, human rights, and the power of the American people to resist tyranny. They don't really care how faithful these buildings are to the architectural precedents on which they're based. They don't associate them with classical Greece-they associate them with the Constitution and other important American traditions. This gives the neoclassical vocabulary a meaning it didn't have before Washington, D.C. was built, no matter how much we protest the inaccuracy of the "alabaster cities" color scheme. For most Americans, this context imbues the style with the same emotional and mental associations they find in the flag, the Great Seal of the United States, the currency, and the men and women in uniform. They don't get the same feeling from a Brutalist courthouse or a Miesian post office-those don't "feel" like federal buildings-they feel like a strip mall or a cheap junior college campus. And this is the context within which federal buildings exist. It is the context of the minds and hearts of the people who fund, view, and use the buildings. To ignore that context would be arrogant, pretentious, superficial, and hollow. I've never met a client yet who commissioned a monument to his architect's preferences.

Sean - I agree with your comments about architects that override the client's objectives with their ego and even mentioned that in my original response. However, let me pose a situation to you.

What if the next president decides neoclassical is out and deconstructivism is in for the next 4 years, is that acceptable? What then if the following president demands post-modern architecture? And then the following president demands Victorian design? This is what you're saying should be acceptable by giving the president the deference you suggest, none of which actually represents the American people but only the desires of the president and their egos.

We can debate stylistic desires forever but it should be noted that most federal buildings are not in Washington but are in our communities. It's more than courthouses and primary federal office buildings in major cities. It's local county social security offices, veterans affairs offices and clinics, and the like. To demand that all of these buildings should be neoclassical begins to impose a specific sense of order and hierarchy within the communities that may not only be extremely disruptive but also not reflective of the community.

Our country is based on freedom and liberty, the importance of the individual but also of the community. To issue an edict from above, saying all buildings must look like "insert your style here", is antithetical to the fundamental principles of our nation. It has nothing to do with whether you like or dislike the current president. It's about our communities and preserving the community fabric while also allowing growth and expansion as the people involved in the community and the specific project see fit.

Arguing that there is a specific style that should be used is just another form of the arrogance that you decry so I find it hard to reconcile with your support of this executive order.

Sean, I appreciate the sentiment and agree we must be responsive to the needs and desires of our clients. However, President Trump does not own the government, he is not a king. He is a person installed for 4 years to run the executive branch of the federal government. If Congress wants to pass a law saying demanding a neoclassical design style for all federal buildings then that is within their authority. The president does not have that authority. The president is an employee of the people of this country, he is not the client.

An article about how Architecural Digest (three years ago) viewed past statements by King Charles on the virtues of historical architectural styles and the sins of Modernist styles: https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/brief-history-king-charles-modern-architecture#:~:text=As%20prince%2C%20Charles%20even%20went,preferred%20style%20of%20classical%20design.