aware

The 1-Minute Brief

What: A memorandum directing the General Services Administration (GSA) to promote classical and traditional architectural styles for new federal public buildings. It asks for recommendations to revise current architectural guidelines to ensure new federal buildings are beautiful, identifiable as civic structures, and respectful of regional and traditional heritage.

Money: The financial impact is not specified in the memorandum. Proponents argue that traditional architecture can be built at a comparable cost to modern designs, while opponents suggest that mandating classical styles could increase costs due to specific material and craftsmanship requirements.

Your Impact: The direct effect on most Americans would be visual, influencing the architectural style of new federal buildings like courthouses and agency headquarters in their communities and in Washington, D.C. It aims to create public buildings that the general public finds beautiful and inspiring.

Status: This memorandum was issued on January 20, 2025. It directs the GSA to provide recommendations within 60 days, indicating it is in the early stages of policy implementation within the Executive Branch.

What's Actually in the Bill

This memorandum from the President directs the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) to craft recommendations that will reshape the policy for federal public buildings. The core goal is to ensure that new federal architecture is visually identifiable as civic in nature and honors America's architectural heritage, with a preference for regional, traditional, and classical styles.

Core Provisions:

The GSA has 60 days from January 20, 2025, to submit recommendations for advancing this new architectural policy.
These recommendations must consider revisions to the "Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture" and new ways to incorporate community input into design selections.
If the GSA intends to approve a design that diverges from this policy before the recommendations are submitted, the Administrator must notify the President at least 30 days before the GSA would incur significant costs for rejecting the design.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The stated purpose is to ensure that federal public buildings "uplift and beautify public spaces and ennoble the United States and our system of self-government." The policy aims to connect new federal buildings to the classical architectural traditions established by the nation's founders, which were intended to symbolize American self-governance.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Architecture, Construction, Government Contracting.
Timeline: Recommendations are due to the President by March 21, 2025.
Scope: The policy applies to all new federal public buildings managed by the GSA across the United States.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Founding Era to the Mid-20th Century (1790s-1950s):

For over 150 years, the federal government's architecture was dominated by classical and traditional styles. Founders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson intentionally chose classical designs for Washington, D.C., to visually link the new republic to the democratic ideals of ancient Athens and Rome. This resulted in iconic and widely beloved landmarks such as the White House, the U.S. Capitol, and the Lincoln Memorial.

The Modernist Shift (1950s-1960s):

In the 1950s, a shift occurred as the federal government began to embrace modernist architectural styles, including Brutalism. This change was formalized in 1962 with the "Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture," authored by Daniel Patrick Moynihan for the Kennedy administration. While intended to promote "the finest contemporary American architectural thought," the principles explicitly stated that "The development of an official style must be avoided." Critics argue these principles implicitly discouraged traditional designs and led to federal buildings that were unpopular with the public.

The "Design Excellence" Era and Renewed Debate (1990s-2020s):

In 1994, the GSA created the Design Excellence Program to improve the quality of federal architecture, but it continued to operate under the 1962 principles. Discontent with modern federal architecture grew, championed by organizations like the National Civic Art Society, which advocates for a return to classical and traditional styles. In December 2020, President Trump issued Executive Order 13967, "Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture," which made classical architecture the preferred style. This order was promptly revoked by President Biden in February 2021.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

The January 20, 2025, memorandum represents a swift reinstatement of a key cultural policy from the previous Trump administration, signaling its importance to the new presidency.
The action aligns with a belief that a majority of Americans prefer traditional architecture for federal buildings, as suggested by a 2020 poll commissioned by the National Civic Art Society.
It serves as a direct challenge to the architectural establishment and professional organizations like the American Institute of Architects (AIA), which have strongly opposed stylistic mandates. This move frames the debate as one of elite tastes versus public preference.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects specific industries like architecture and construction, but its most noticeable impact on the average American will be on the aesthetic character of their communities and the nation's capital.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

New federal buildings in your area may be constructed in styles that are more traditionally familiar and, according to proponents, more beautiful and inspiring.
The policy encourages more community input, potentially giving local residents a greater voice in the design of federal buildings in their towns and cities.
Supporters believe this will lead to the creation of new, beloved public landmarks that strengthen civic pride.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-3 years):

There may be debates and delays in new federal construction projects as the GSA develops and implements new guidelines.
The cost of new federal buildings could potentially increase if mandated styles require more expensive materials or specialized labor, though this is a point of contention.

Long-term:

The visual landscape of American cities and towns could see a shift in the style of its government buildings, moving away from the modern designs of the past 70 years.
This could limit architectural innovation and diversity in the public sector, as critics fear it imposes a restrictive, official style.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Architects, design firms, and construction companies that compete for federal contracts.
Secondary Groups: Local communities where new federal buildings are planned.
Regional Impact: The memorandum explicitly mentions respecting "regional architectural heritage," which could lead to different applications of the policy across the country. Washington, D.C. has historically been the focal point of this debate.

Bottom Line: The new federal courthouse or office building in your region will more likely look like a classical temple or a traditional regional design than a modern glass-and-steel structure.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Make Federal Buildings Beautiful Again"

Core Stance: Generally supports establishing classical and traditional architecture as the default style for federal buildings to restore beauty and dignity to public spaces.

Their Arguments:

✓ Federal architecture should inspire civic pride and reflect the enduring ideals of American self-government, as the founders intended.
✓ The public overwhelmingly prefers traditional designs over the modernist styles favored by architectural elites.
✓ The 1962 "Guiding Principles" led to decades of unattractive and unpopular federal buildings.

Legislative Strategy: This policy is being pursued via executive action, bypassing Congress. The strategy is to embed this preference into the procurement and design review processes of the General Services Administration.

Democratic Position: "Defend Design Freedom and Diversity"

Core Stance: Generally opposes mandating any single architectural style, arguing it stifles innovation and local control.

Their Arguments:

✓ Architectural decisions should be made by design professionals and local communities, not dictated by the federal government.
✓ Mandating a preferred style is antithetical to the GSA's "Guiding Principles," which wisely avoid an "official style."
✗ An enforced classical style ignores the rich diversity of modern American culture and regional identities. Critics have called the move an authoritarian imposition of taste.

Legislative Strategy: When in power, Democrats have revoked these executive orders. Allies in Congress have previously introduced legislation like the "Democracy in Design Act" to codify the current style-neutral principles into law to prevent future executive actions of this kind.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The Executive Branch's authority stems from its power to manage federal property and execute the laws passed by Congress, such as the Public Buildings Act of 1959. This act grants the Administrator of the General Services Administration broad authority to construct, alter, and acquire public buildings for the federal government.

Relevant Portion of the Constitution: Article II, Section 3, the "Take Care Clause," which states the President shall "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Constitutional Implications:

[Executive Power]: The President, as head of the Executive Branch, has the authority to direct the agencies under his control, including setting policy for the design and construction of federal properties managed by the GSA. This memorandum is an exercise of that executive management power.
[Precedent]: Presidents routinely issue executive orders and memoranda to direct the internal operations and policies of the federal government. President Kennedy's administration established the 1962 Guiding Principles, and subsequent presidents have either adhered to them or, in the case of the Trump administration, sought to change them through executive action.
[Federalism]: This action applies only to federal public buildings and does not intrude upon the powers reserved to the states to regulate their own public architecture.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Legal challenges are unlikely to succeed on constitutional grounds. The primary battleground is political and administrative. Opponents, like the American Institute of Architects, will likely challenge the policy through the administrative process as the GSA proposes new rules and during public comment periods. They may also pursue a legislative remedy in Congress to block the policy.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS POLICY

5-Minute Actions:

Contact the White House: Use the White House contact form to express your support for the "Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture" policy.
Contact the GSA: Express your support to the GSA Administrator as they develop their recommendations.

30-Minute Deep Dive:

Write a Detailed Email: Send a detailed message to the GSA and your congressional representatives outlining why you support a return to traditional and classical federal architecture.
Join an Organization: Join or follow organizations like the National Civic Art Society, which champions traditional public architecture.

TO OPPOSE THIS POLICY

5-Minute Actions:

Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose the presidential memorandum on federal architecture and support design freedom."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper arguing against a mandated federal style and in favor of architectural diversity.
Join an Organization: Join or follow organizations like the American Institute of Architects (AIA), which advocates for style neutrality and design freedom for architects.