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.