One of the most interesting executive orders from Donald Trump’s first day back in office was one titled “Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture.” That order begins:
I hereby direct the Administrator of the General Services Administration, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the heads of departments and agencies of the United States where necessary, to submit to me within 60 days recommendations to advance the policy that 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.
This executive order caught my attention because architecture has always fascinated me. I never possessed the talent to become an architect, but various styles have always captured my attention. It’s similar to an executive order that Trump wrote in 2020; my friend and colleague Matt Margolis pointed out that Joe Biden promptly rescinded it in 2021.
Architecture can be art, whether it’s the lovely classical architecture that President Trump is fond of, the gorgeous craftsman and modern buildings of Frank Lloyd Wright, or the unmistakable mid-century modern style of homes. What’s not artistic is the brutalist International Style of apartments and office buildings — those boxes of steel, glass, and concrete that don’t inspire or generate excitement. It’s those buildings that the president wants to guard against with this executive order.
One of my favorite non-fiction books is Tom Wolfe’s “From Bauhaus to Our House,” which is a blistering takedown of brutalist architecture in Wolfe’s inimitable prose. “Every great law firm in New York moves without a sputter of protest into a glass-box office building with concrete slab floors and seven-foot-ten-inch-high concrete slab ceilings and plasterboard walls and pygmy corridors…” Wolfe writes of the boxy skyscrapers. “Without a peep they move in! – even though the glass box appalls them all.”
Flashback: Tom Wolfe: Readers and Lovers of the Written Word Will Always Be Grateful for You
Somehow, the glass box became a template for federal architecture, too. That movement came at the confluence of two phenomena: the height of the brutalist style in the ‘60s and the rapid growth of government under Democrat administrations (surprise).
The National Capital Planning Commission explains why there are so many brutalist buildings in D.C.:
In the 1960s, the federal government experienced a period of growth and required more office space to accommodate its growing workforce. Responding to this need, President John F. Kennedy established the Ad Hoc Committee of Federal Office Space, which published a report in 1962 that included Guiding Principles 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.”
The high era of Brutalist architectural popularity coincided with Moynihan’s newly published report and the federal government’s need for new buildings. Brutalism’s use of concrete—a solid, durable, and economical material—made it an appealing contemporary style to provide government agencies with efficient facilities that designers believed represented the stability of the American government. The buildings emphasized both efficiency and streamlined 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 Claude Pepper Building on the campus of the National Institutes of Health:
Washington, D.C., is littered with these monstrosities to the point that websites and maps detail the infestation of brutalism in the district. 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.
Obviously (and unfortunately), we can’t just tear down all these awful buildings and build better-looking designs in their place. So why is Trump obsessed with the design of federal buildings? He wants to avoid these mistakes in the future.
Culture Critic dives deeper into what the order means:
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 workers do their job in?
The key lies in understanding whom federal workers serve — 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: 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.”
This vision hearkens back to the Founding Fathers. 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.”
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 could also opt for appealing modern designs that don’t look like they popped up from behind 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. If all goes to plan, the executive order might help shape public spaces that reflect the dignity and values of the American Republic.
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. We have too many ugly federal buildings now, so why not build new ones that are beautiful and inspiring?
If you've read this far, thank you! We love our readers, and you can continue to support us by becoming a PJ Media VIP. Our VIPs are the lifeblood of what we do, and they invest in our mission — plus they receive some great rewards, including exclusive content, podcasts, an ad-free experience, and commenting privileges.
A PJ Media VIP membership is a tremendous value on its own, but you can use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off! We're not just trying to save America here; we're trying to save the West as we know it.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member