Trump Wants to Make American Buildings Beautiful Again

One of Donald Trump’s most intriguing professional orders was one titled” Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture.” That get begins:

In order to advance the policy that provincial public buildings must be aesthetically distinguishable as municipal buildings and respect local, standard, and classical architectural heritage, I now ask the Administrator of the General Services Administration to consult with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and our system of self-government in 60 days. This includes recommendations that respect regional, traditional, and classical architectural heritage, as well as regional, traditional, and classical public buildings. &nbsp,

Because infrastructure has usually fascinated me, I was drawn to this executive order. Although I never had the ability to become an engineer, different architectural styles have always caught my attention. My friend and colleague Matt Margolis pointed out that Joe Biden had already withdrawn it in 2021, making it akin to an executive order that Trump issued in 2020.

Whether it’s the lovely classic architecture that President Trump enjoys, the stunning craftsman and contemporary Frank Lloyd Wright structures, or the unmistakably mid-century modern homes, architecture may be art. What’s not creative is the architecture International Style of apartments and company buildings — those boxes of metal, glass, and masonry that don’t encourage or create excitement. With this professional order, the senator wants to avoid those types of structures.

Tom Wolfe’s” From Bauhaus to Our House,” one of my favourite non-fiction books, is a burning rehash of minimalist infrastructure in Wolfe’s unmatched language. Every top law firm in New York moves into a glass-box business building without a spit of protest, complete with plasterboard walls, seven-foot-ten-inch-high concrete block ceilings, and pygmy corridors, according to Wolfe, who writes about the boxy skyscrapers. They move in without a spy, they say! despite the crystal container enclosing them all.

Flashback: &nbsp, Tom Wolfe: Users and Fans of the Written Word Will Always Be Thankful for You

Apparently the glass container became a template for national architecture, to. The emergence of that movement coincides with two events: the brutalist style at its height in the 1960s and the rapid expansion of government under Democrat administrations ( surprise ). &nbsp,

The National Capital Planning Commission explains why Washington, D.C., has so many minimalist structures:

The federal government went through a boom in the 1960s, and it needed more office space to support its expanding labor. President John F. Kennedy responded to this want by creating the Ad Hoc Committee of Federal Office Space, which released a statement in 1962 that included Guidelines for Federal Architecture. Drafted by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the document encouraged federal planners to build structures that “reflect the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the American National Government” and “embody the finest contemporary American architectural thought” .&nbsp,
 
The great age of Brutalist structural recognition coincided with Moynihan’s recently published report and the federal government’s need for fresh buildings. Brutalism’s usage of concrete—a reliable, durable, and efficient material—made it an attractive contemporary style to give government agencies with useful facilities that designers believed represented the stability of the British government. The buildings placed a premium on both streamlined and efficient monumental concrete structures.

Thus, our capital city became overrun with ugly, uninspiring buildings. Witness the James Forrestal Building, which houses the Department of Energy:

Or the Frances Perkins Building, which is home to the Department of Labor:

Or the National Institutes of Health’s Claude Pepper Building:

Washington, D.C., is riddled with these abominables to the point where maps and maps/map-brutalist-architecture-washington-dc” target=”_blank”>websites reveal how widespread brutalism is in the area. But it’s not just D. C. federal buildings that adopted a brutalist aesthetic. Atlanta’s Richard B. Russell Federal Building is a boxy eyesore.

Culture Critic delves deeper into the meaning of the order:

The 2025 executive order is a continuation of the President’s critique of modernist architecture, which he and many Americans view as cold, uninviting, and detached from the public. Indeed, 72 % of Americans surveyed prefer traditional over modernist architecture for public buildings.

But why does it matter what kind of building federal employees work in?

The key lies in comprehending who federal employees are serving, specifically the American people. The logic follows that just as a federal employee’s work isn’t just for him or her but for all of us, so too the building itself shouldn’t be made just for the employee, but for the public.

” When federal employees go to work in a brutalist building, it impacts how they do their job, or how they view the nation they’ve sworn to serve”, Culture Critic adds. ” When they go to work in a building that conveys dignity, beauty, and respect for civic life, the impact is just the same — except this time, it’s uplifting rather than upsetting”.

Recommended: &nbsp, The Quintessentially ‘ 70s Story of Atlanta’s Ski Slope ( Yes, You Read That Right )

Trump’s executive order “maintains that federal architecture should serve the American people on two fronts: by enhancing the beauty of their public spaces and by ennobling the federal workers who serve them.”

The Founding Fathers are referenced in this vision. Thomas Jefferson, who was a self-taught architect, particularly believed in classical architecture as a way to inspire a young nation. He echoed English architect Christopher Wren, who said,” Architecture has its political use, public buildings being the ornament of a country, it establishes a nation, draws people and commerce, makes the people love their native country … Architecture aims at eternity” .&nbsp,

How do we achieve what the executive order calls for, namely designs that “respect regional, traditional, and classical architectural heritage”? Culture Critic suggests styles like Art Deco, Gothic Revival, and Spanish Colonial Revival in appropriate regions, to those, I would add Craftsman and Georgian buildings where those styles would be appropriate. The feds may also choose appealing contemporary designs that don’t appear to have fallen from the Iron Curtain.

Culture Critic concludes:

President Trump’s vision for federal architecture is clear — a return to designs that inspire civic pride, reflect the nation’s ideals, and connect Americans to their cultural heritage. The executive order might have a positive impact on the design of public spaces that honor the American Republic’s dignity and values.

In doing so, America again pays homage to its Founding Fathers, who understood that architecture is more than mere construction — it is a symbol of a nation’s aspirations.

Here’s hoping this order will stick. Why not construct new, beautiful and inspiring federal buildings instead of the current, overcrowded ones?

Source credit