President of the National Civic Art Society, a non-profit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. that promotes the classical and humanistic tradition in public art and architecture. Eleventh Chairman of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, an independent federal agency comprising seven presidential appointees who are the aesthetic guardians of Washington.
On September 3, 2025, I delivered a talk on “The Architect as Nation-Builder” at NatCon. Speaking of how public architecture can inspire civic virtue, I quoted Cass Gilbert, architect of the U.S. Supreme Court, on the underlying philosophy of his work: “It is an inspiration toward patriotism and good citizenship, it encourages just pride in the state, and is an education to on-coming generations to see these things, imponderable elements of life and character, set before the people for their enjoyment and betterment…. It is a symbol of the civilization, culture and ideals of our country.”
I noted, “It was Gilbert himself who was responsible for the phrase above the entrance to the Supreme Court: ‘Equal justice under law.’ Those words have become a famous tag line for the court, but it was the idea of the architect—a true nation-builder.”
On September 15, 2025, the Danish newspaper Politiken published a profile of me (original article in Danish here). English translation by the reporter:
***
He Hates Brutalism – and Loves Trump’s Architecture Executive Order
Donald Trump’s executive order is, for Justin Shubow, a long-awaited and welcome break with the development that, since the 1960s, has set the course for federal construction in the United States.
By Anders Tornsø Jørgensen
Justin Shubow has rarely had more reason to celebrate.
For U.S. President Donald Trump has signed a executive order titled “Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again.” It states that future federal buildings—ranging from courthouses to government offices—should as a rule be constructed in “traditional or classical architecture.”
Modern architecture, such as brutalism and deconstructivism, has for far too long been playgrounds for “the architectural elite, but not for the American people whom the buildings are intended to serve,” the executive order declares. Should an architect nevertheless deviate, the president must be notified.
“We are at a decisive turning point in federal architecture. This marks the end of modernism’s hegemony,” says Justin Shubow from his home in a suburb of Washington, D.C.
He feels that his years-long struggle has finally borne fruit.
Since 2011, Shubow has led the organization National Civic Art Society, which fights for the return of classicism. On its website, modernism is dismissed as “parasitic architecture,” while both NPR and The New York Times have labeled Shubow “one of the fiercest critics of modern architecture”—a title he wears as a badge of honor.
“As Winston Churchill said: We shape our buildings, and thereafter they shape us. I believe our buildings influence our consciousness—they shape how we think, feel, and act. Classical architecture reminds us to think in centuries rather than only in the present.”
According to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and several international architecture professors interviewed by Politiken, Shubow played a central role in drafting Trump’s order and his organization includes architect James McCrery, who recently drew attention for his work on a new White House ballroom.
Shubow himself does not wish to comment on his involvement in the order.
The Fall from Grace
When the U.S. capital was established, the nation’s founders deliberately carved the republic’s ideals of democracy, civic virtue, and self-determination into marble and columns. That ambition lives on in Washington’s iconic buildings—from the White House and the Supreme Court to the Lincoln Memorial.
But 1962 marked, for Shubow, the beginning of an aesthetic decline, when new guidelines for federal architecture were introduced. They insisted that the state should not impose an official style.
“For far too long we have built sad, ugly, and unpopular buildings. President Trump recognizes that the classical tradition is timeless, and that it set the standard for 150 years,” says Shubow.
Alarm bells are ringing at the industry group The American Institute of Architects (AIA), which would prefer to keep the 1962 guidelines.
“AIA is deeply concerned about any change that removes community influence, imposes official federal style requirements, restricts artistic freedom, or adds new bureaucratic barriers to the construction of public buildings,” writes press chief Matt Tinder in an email to Politiken.
Shubow rejects the criticism, emphasizing that the decree preserves regional character and diversity.
“The word ‘traditional’ is defined broadly in the decree, and includes, for example, Pueblo Revival found in the American Southwest. It’s not a demand that there must be pediments and columns everywhere. Even the word ‘classical’ is defined broadly and encompasses both Beaux-Arts and Art Deco—not only neoclassicism,” he says.
“The most far-reaching requirements apply to Washington, D.C., where new federal buildings must be classical. But I don’t see any new projects on the way there.”
Popular Architecture
Shubow is neither an architect nor a designer—and he sees that as his strength.
“I was never brainwashed in architecture school,” as he puts it.
According to Shubow, this gives him a perspective on buildings closer to ordinary people’s than to professionals’. And that perspective is needed, he believes. For there is a fundamental divide: architects’ tastes on one side, the public’s preferences on the other.
As an example, he highlights a 2020 survey conducted by Harris Poll for the National Civic Art Society among more than 2,000 Americans, which showed that 72 percent preferred traditional over modern architecture for federal buildings.
But according to Cameron Logan, architectural historian at the University of Sydney in Australia, the survey says more about people’s immediate aesthetic preferences than about architecture in practice.
“Many will point to traditional buildings as the most beautiful,” he says.
“But the question is whether they would still choose them if it meant poorer environmental performance, worse functionality, or higher costs.”
For Shubow, however, aesthetics are decisive. He emphasizes that classical architecture is sustainable in itself because the buildings last longer and can still be fully functional.
“Just look at the Capitol—a 200-year-old building that still functions flawlessly,” he says.
The Strongman
According to Daniel Abramson, professor of architecture at Boston University, Trump’s interest in classical architecture is closely tied to his political project.
“It gives Trump a narrative of authority and tradition, and it fits into his overarching strategy of undermining the established elites, including in architecture,” he says.
Samuel Sadow, assistant professor in the Department of Art at American University in Washington, D.C., points out that classicism in itself is not inherently linked to authoritarian regimes. Architectural languages—whether classical or modernist—can equally be used by a dictator for propagandistic or repressive purposes.
That said, he sees Trump’s initiative as part of a familiar trend:
“A ‘national style’ in architecture has undoubtedly been a hallmark of authoritarian regimes in the past. Trump’s attempt to do the same—both in his first term and now again—fits quite naturally into his broader authoritarian initiatives and statements on free speech, gender and diversity, immigration, and law enforcement,” says Samuel Sadow.
Shubow rejects this.
According to him, architecture is not a political issue for most Americans. He recalls that Barack Obama, in 2008, accepted the Democratic presidential nomination in front of a classical Greek backdrop, without anyone crying authoritarianism.
“Granted, Trump is a deeply polarizing figure. But I think that when people see pictures of the buildings that have actually been constructed, they will realize that something has gone seriously wrong.”
Here are five buildings Justin Shubow dislikes (photos of each)
San Francisco Federal Building. Designed by Thom Mayne of Morphosis Architects, the San Francisco building was completed in 2007. “It looks like a spaceship about to kill you with laser beams,” Shubow says.
Orrin G. Hatch United States Courthouse. Designed by Thomas Phifer of Thomas Phifer & Partners, the Salt Lake City courthouse has, according to Shubow, earned the local nickname “Borg Cube,” after the villains in Star Trek.
J. Edgar Hoover Building. The FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., completed in 1975, is an example of Brutalist architecture. “A colossus I call the Ministry of Fear,” Shubow says.
Robert C. Weaver Federal Building. Completed in 1968, this Brutalist landmark houses the Department of Housing and Urban Development. According to Shubow, three different secretaries have described it as “ten basements stacked on top of each other.”
Alfonse M. D’Amato United States Courthouse. Designed by Richard Meier and opened in 2000, it is the third-largest federal courthouse in the United States. “Even The New York Times’ own architecture critic wrote that the building had an uncanny feel,” Shubow says.
On September 19, 2025, Fox News published an op-ed by Senator Jim Banks of Indiana and me:
***
Architecture speaks volumes about how any culture sees the world and the values that guide it. When Americans think of the buildings that best reflect our values, we think of landmarks like the Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court, and the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials.
All these structures have something in common: they’re beautiful and made of stone that radiates with light. There’s something about them that makes you look up, take notice and feel pride. More importantly, they reflect the kind of classic architecture that’s stood the test of time, going back to the traditions of ancient Greece and Rome.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson put an emphasis on classical architecture when they helped design America’s capital. Jefferson hailed the U.S. Capitol building as “the first temple dedicated to the sovereignty of the people, embellishing with Athenian taste the course of a nation looking far beyond the range of Athenian destinies.” Washington praised the “grandeur, simplicity, and beauty” of the Capitol’s neoclassical design.
The Founders started a classical tradition that lasted nearly 150 years. It inspired the construction of beautiful buildings across America, such as Indianapolis’ Birch Bayh U.S. Courthouse – a beaux arts design completed in 1905. Built with Indiana limestone, it features Ionic columns and grand courtrooms.
The Tippecanoe County Courthouse in Lafayette, Indiana, is another great example. Completed in 1884, its three-tiered clock tower, sculptures and domed roof make this courthouse one of Indiana’s most beautiful public buildings.
But starting in the 1960s, our national government stopped prioritizing beautiful buildings. Today, fewer than 10% of new government buildings are in the classical or traditional mold. Ugly structures have emerged, including brutalist concrete hulks here in Washington like the FBI headquarters and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Three different HUD secretaries – one Republican and two Democrats – have compared their building to 10 floors of basement.
More recently, we’ve gotten new courthouses that resemble bizarre art projects, and in some cases blatantly undermine our country’s values. The architect of the Nancy Pelosi San Francisco Federal Building has openly said his work takes an “aggressive attitude” toward the public.
To overturn this trend, I (Sen. Banks) will soon introduce the Beautifying Federal Civic Architecture Act. It codifies President Donald Trump’s executive order “Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again.” My bill, like that order, demands that new federal buildings “uplift and beautify public spaces, inspire the human spirit, ennoble the United States, and command respect from the general public.”
My legislation doesn’t mandate any specific style for buildings across the country – it only requires a preference for classical and traditional architecture designs, which include everything from neoclassical to art deco to Romanesque to Pueblo revival.
My bill also requires federal agencies to gather substantial input from local communities when designs are being selected for federal buildings. At present, there is absolutely zero requirement for federal agencies to consider what kind of buildings the people they serve want. My legislation reverses that, ensuring the public has a say in the design of their government buildings.
Our country is still capable of building beautiful, dignified public architecture that encourages civic virtue. The Tuscaloosa Federal Building and Courthouse, which opened in 2012, stands as proof of that. Its classical design not only conveys strength and beauty; even more impressively, it was completed on time and under budget. It proves that beautiful designs do not have to come at the expense of fiscal responsibility.
The truth is that most Americans prefer classical architecture for their government buildings. A 2020 National Civic Art Society/Harris Poll survey of 2,000 U.S. adults found that 72% of Americans preferred traditional designs. Majorities across every demographic group favor this approach, including 70% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans.
Admittedly, some cultural elites will defend even the ugliest designs. Those same social activists complain that classicism reflects Western civilization and American values and history at the time of the founding. Guilty as charged.
Those critics are right but not in the way they believe. The design of our public buildings is not just about aesthetics and beauty. It is also a debate over Western values: who we are, who we wish to be as a nation. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who had a passion for architecture, was fond of quoting Thomas Jefferson for that very reason: “Design activity and political thought are indivisible.”
Political architecture is, by nature, a political choice. The Founders always intended for Washington, D.C., to be a classical city. That’s why we must pass my bill – to ensure our federal buildings continue to boldly reflect the values that make America the greatest nation on Earth.
Justin Shubow is president of the National Civic Art Society and former chairman of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts.
Republican Jim Banks represents Indiana in the U.S. Senate.
In “Don’t make federal architecture beautiful again” (Opinion, Life & Arts, September 6), Carlo Ratti argues that President Donald Trump is wrong to reorient federal architecture in a classical and traditional direction since what America needs are experimental, “sustainable” new buildings.
He alludes to the reasons the founding fathers embraced the classical tradition. However, Ratti fails to understand that the founders looked forwards while simultaneously looking backwards (as they did in political philosophy). For instance, Thomas Jefferson designed the Virginia Capitol, one of the most important American buildings of his time, as a close imitation of an ancient Roman temple, the Maison Carrée in Nîmes, in southern France. Focusing on technological innovation and the use of new materials, Ratti downplays the significance of aesthetics. One of Jefferson’s foremost reasons for choosing classical exemplars for the new nation was their beauty, which he said had the “approbation of thousands of years”.
In claiming that classical architecture is wrong for the modern era, Ratti also completely skips over the Beaux-Arts era in government buildings, which produced some of the most iconic, beloved structures in the country. The US Supreme Court, National Archives, and Jefferson Memorial — all completed in the 1930s and 1940s — are classical temples, not experimental designs.
Would it have been better that these had been constructed in the International Style, the avant-garde fashion of the time?
Aesthetics and symbolism particularly matter in government buildings since they physically embody the continuity of the nation’s values. I played a key role in promoting the ideas underlying Trump’s recent executive order, and have often said the common person is not ennobled or inspired by a “sustainable” building that looks like an alien spacecraft, such as the San Francisco federal building or Salt Lake City’s United States Courthouse.
And ironically, traditional architecture is in fact highly sustainable. Traditional buildings have longer life-cycles than modernist ones and require less energy to produce.
Moreover, architectural experimentation makes least sense in government designs, aesthetically or functionally. The US courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona, for example, which was completed in 2000, is precisely that — an “innovative” glass box in the desert that gets scorchingly hot inside.
Justin Shubow President, National Civic Art Society Former chairman of the US Commission of Fine Arts Washington, DC. US
In 2021, Justin Shubow, the president of the non-profit National Civic Art Society, approached a team of supporters with a starry-eyed vision: Renovate New York City’s Penn Station according to a grand neoclassical design. Shubow knew that the idea was a long shot. Generations of architects and urban planners had tried and failed to renovate the transit hub, whose maze of narrow corridors and dimly lit concourses regularly invites comparisons to a subterranean rats’ net.
But Shubow, a Columbia University-educated architectural critic with round-rimmed glasses and a carefully manicured goatee, thought it was important to try. During the first Trump administration, he had championed the revival of classical architecture as the chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts, and he wanted to bring the same aesthetic principles to bear on a new Penn Station — not just for the sake of the city’s harried commuters, but as a statement about the resurgent greatness of America in the Trump era.
“Classical architecture is the architecture of American democracy,” said Shubow, noting that the original Penn Station, with its imposing doric columns and soaring marble archways, was an exemplary model of classical design before it was demolished in 1963. “It is the architecture of civic virtue.
Shubow’s pitch found a receptive audience among his allies on the MAGA right. Tom Klingenstein, the Republican mega-donor and chair of the conservative think tank the Claremont Institute, quickly signed on as a chief financial backer. Over the next three years, a team led by the classical architect Alexandros Washburn spent hundreds of hours and over $3 million designing a plan — dubbed “Grand Penn” — to replace the existing station with a palatial new complex, complete with a glass-enclosed train hall, a 600,000-square-foot concourse, a public park and a new classical façade modeled on the pre-1963 station. On paper, the planers claim, the renovation would cost somewhere in the ballpark of $7.5 billion and could be completed by 2036.
But by the time the plan for Grand Penn plan was completed in late 2024, it was only lacking one thing: political muscle. Amid intractable fighting between the various city, state and federal authorities that claimed justification over station, Grand Penn remained little more than a blueprint on a shelf.
Then Donald Trump reentered the White House.
In April, Trump announced that his Department of Transportation would taking over a possible Penn Station renovation, wresting oversight of the project from embattled city and state authorities. The administration’s abrupt intervention was an extraordinary stroke of good luck for the team behind Grand Penn. Practically overnight, their plan for a classically inspired station went from a far-fetched conservative pipe dream to a real possibility. Although Trump’s Department of Transportation has not formally endorsed the plan, the plan’s architects have met with senior officials from DOT and the Federal Railroad Administration in recent months, and discussions between the two groups are ongoing, according to multiple people with knowledge of the discussions. (A spokesperson for DOT confirmed that FRA officials have met with the Grand Penn team, among other design firms.) In recent weeks, Trump has personally contacted Grand Penn’s backers to express interest in their design, said a person familiar with the situation who was granted anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.
“It seems that the stars might be aligning,” said Shubow, sounding a note of cautious optimism. . . .
Yet for the team behind the Grand Penn plan, the stakes of the battle go far beyond the station itself. In their eyes, a classical renovation of Penn Station could mark the first step in a broader aesthetic revolution — or, better yet, a counter-revolution — that would usher in a new wave of classical architecture befitting of Trump’s promised “golden age” in America. . . .
“Classical architecture is the philosophical manifestation of the theoretical founding of our regime,” said Klingenstein, a hedge-fund manager who donated over $10 million to Republican campaigns and causes in the latest election cycle. “The theory goes back to Rome and Greece. This is their — and, by adoption, our — architecture.”
Or, as Shubow has more succinctly put it, it’s time to “Make American Beautiful Again.” . . .
[D]uring his tenure in Washington, Trump has demonstrated at least some support for the architectural principles of ancient Athens and Rome. Toward the end of his first term in 2020, the president issued an executive order — supported by Shubow’s Commission of Fine Arts — directing the General Services Administration to defer to classical architectural aesthetics when designing new federal buildings. After the order was rescinded by the Biden administration, Trump issued a new presidential memo this past January reiterating the directive. . . .
“Building a fantastic new Penn Station with classical architecture would make a statement about American civilization in the same way that the rebuilding of Notre Dame in Paris said something about French civilization,” said Shubow, recalling Trump’s visit to the newly rebuilt gothic cathedral last December. “This project is so important that this could be one of the president’s biggest legacies.” . . .
In a statement, the [Trump] administration echoed Grand Penn’s grandiose ambitions: “Once-iconic gems of America’s infrastructure like New York’s Penn Station cannot continue to languish under incompetent leadership,” said White House spokesperson Kush Desai. “Restoring and revitalizing America’s infrastructure is a key priority for the Trump administration as part of our mandate to restore American Greatness.”
On May 16, 2025, European broadcaster ARTE interviewed me for a Reportage segment on “Washington vs. MAGA.” The discussion centered on the architecture of the nation’s capital and the civic ideals it expresses. I drew a sharp contrast between the city’s classical landmarks, such as the National Gallery of Art (a “modern” building completed in 1941), and the harsh, unpopular Brutalism of structures such as the Hirshhorn Museum and FBI Headquarters.
Tuscaloosa Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, Completed 2012
I was recently selected by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) to serve on the National Registry of Peer Professionals. GSA is the government agency that builds and owns federal buildings and U.S. courthouses. Participating in GSA’s Design Excellence Program, I join a group of experts in architecture, engineering, and construction who advise on the design and execution of federal building projects.
On May 29, 2025, I appeared on the Who Versus podcast for a fun and freewheeling discussion about architecture, power, and the values embedded in our public buildings. What began as a discussion of Brutalism and the movie The Brutalist opened into a broader reflection on how architectural choices shape civic experience and reveal the assumptions behind them. We talked about many other things, including deconstructivism, Art Deco, and the historic urban plans that have guided the design of Washington, D.C. since the country’s founding.
The podcast hosts were Phil Reboli, senior director of government affairs at the Conservative Partnership Institute, and James Holland, president of the Conservative Partnership Campus.
On April 24, 2025, I delivered a lecture on “The City Beautiful Movement and Washington, D.C.” as part of the inaugural Teófilo Victoria Lecture Series, sponsored by the Florida chapter of the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art in collaboration with the Coral Gables Museum and National Civic Art Society. The précis of my talk, which took place at the aforementioned museum:
The 1901-1902 McMillan Plan for Washington, D.C. was the first achievement, and arguably the apogee, of the City Beautiful movement. Furthering and reinterpreting the original L’Enfant Plan for the capital, the McMillan Plan replaced the Victorian landscaping of the National Mall with the east-west axis and Monumental Core as we know them: stately classical buildings and memorials and public grounds. The Plan, the creation of the Senate Park Commission chaired by Senator James McMillan, paved the way for and envisioned the Lincoln Memorial, Union Station, the Federal Triangle, and generous public parks. The Plan continues to underpin planning in the District of Columbia to so some degree, though some have called for a McMillan 2.0 to broaden the vision for the next century. What might a neo-City Beautiful plan look like?
On April 7, 2025, Tom Temin interviewed me on the Federal Drive, a show on the Federal News Network. I discussed government architecture policy under President Trump, including his 2020 Executive Order on the subject. Audio recording and transcript here.
