commission

WASHINGTON — A federal panel was expected Thursday to approve President Trump’s proposed memorial arch in Washington at the end of a meeting that drew dozens of opponents to a key part of the president’s push to leave his imprint on the nation’s capital.

The approval would clear a hurdle on the road to breaking ground on the project, and the administration has said it could launch construction within a day of the vote. But the proposed 250-foot tall gilded arch still faced legal challenges.

The remote, call-in hearing — which crashed repeatedly and was accompanied by a nearly universally negative comment section — drew witnesses who gave impassioned, three-minute comments opposing an arch they said will destroy the solemnity of the nearby Arlington National Cemetery.

The Trump-appointed chairman of the commission, however, launched into a gushing appraisal of the towering monument and lauded Trump for wanting to build it.

“President Trump understands as president and a superb builder that it’s important to our national identity to display who we are through grand monuments,” said Mark Paoletta, the commission’s chairman.

As Trump has often remarked, “the great cities around the world have arches: Paris, Rome, London,” said Paoletta, who also serves as general counsel for the White House Office of Management and Budget. In addition to Paoletta, the arch received support during the hearing from Republican lawmakers and a veteran who praised the administration’s efforts to build the monument.

The commission oversees construction on federal land in the city and began reviewing the arch plan in June.

Trump is working to remake Washington

The arch is one of several projects around Washington that the Republican president has undertaken as he alters the capital to his tastes — from renovating one of its storied public golf courses to threatening to demolish the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Those projects could soon face intense scrutiny after Democrats gained control of Congress in the midterm elections this week.

Many of the plans are being challenged in the courts, and three lawsuits have been filed opposing the arch. A judge has been asked to block the construction so long as lawsuits are still being litigated, and she could rule as early as Thursday.

Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat who is set to chair the House Natural Resources Committee, called the project ill-advised and illegal.

“This arch would dishonor America,” Huffman told the commission. He called the proposed arch “a tribute to Donald Trump,” not veterans as Trump administration officials claim. The monument is similar to those built for emperors or kings, Huffman said, adding that Trump was using veterans as a pretext to build a memorial to himself.

Opponents argue the arch is too big for the skyline and would disrupt carefully designed sight lines between landmarks in and around the capital — most prominently the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery — that were meant to symbolize the reunification of the North and the South after the Civil War.

But the opposition has done little to influence the members of the commission, which is led by some of Trump’s closest allies. Trump appointed Paoletta to chair the 12-member panel. Two other commissioners are also White House aides.

Trump wants an arch, but it faces legal challenges

Still, a federal judge on Monday complicated Trump’s efforts to move quickly on the project.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s plans, said she must be told of any decision by the planning commission within an hour. The order set the same time limits for any decision by the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior.

Before Thursday’s hearing began, attorneys with the Justice Department filed a notice with Chutkan informing her that a contractor had already done site prep work on Oct. 31, with what she said appeared to be no authorization from the National Park Service.

The plaintiffs in the three lawsuits are calling for a halt to work on a monument that is set to be built on a patch of grass off a bridge that spans the Potomac River and connects Washington with Arlington National Cemetery, in Arlington, Va. When complete, the monument would be 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty without its pedestal.

Critics, including the plaintiffs, argue that the Trump administration must seek congressional approval. The administration maintains that Congress cleared the way for a monument at Memorial Circle decades ago.

Paoletta said it was a “national disgrace” that a memorial arch had not been placed there, despite a 1925 law that designated such a memorial, he said.

Last week, the government submitted a 106-page plan for the arch that envisions a massive structure more than 12 stories high that includes a huge bronze statue of Lady Liberty with wings and carrying a torch with an eternal flame. The structure would include an observation deck with views to the east and the west and two mezzanines.

Inside the arch are rooms for program space, offices, a staff lounge, circular staircases, multiple elevators and a fire command center. The project proposes significant traffic changes in the area, including rerouting traffic on nearby roads. Administration officials have said the arch also will have a national security function.

In a recent hearing, Chutkan asked why the Trump administration was so keen on moving ahead quickly with the arch despite the ongoing lawsuits, aside from Trump’s “desire to bedazzle the city.”

Administration lawyer Robert Stander said the arch was “absolutely a high-priority project” and that any ruling delaying construction would impede the work of the government.

Daly and Fields write for the Associated Press.

A human defeated two of the three robots he faced in a cage fight recently held in San Francisco.

The humans behind that fight could face a battle of their own — the legal type — if they want to hold another event like “Human Vs. Robot,” the Sept. 18 competition that placed influencer Frankie LaPenna inside an octagon to battle three humanoid robots that were controlled remotely by a human operator in separate MMA-style fights.

REK (Robot Entertainment Kombat), the “humanoid robot fighting” company that staged the event, billed it as the “first human vs. robot fight in history.” Videos of the bouts have combined for more than 10 million views on YouTube.

Not everyone is a fan. On Sept. 23, the California State Athletic Commission sent a cease-and-desist order to REK, its CEO Cix Liv and “all persons holding, promoting, advertising or sponsoring unsanctioned human versus humanoid robot cage fight.”

The letter states that “any boxing or mixed martial arts contest, match, or exhibition, involving any human in the State of California” requires the prior approval of the commission and that it is a misdemeanor to hold such an event without obtaining a license or permit from the state.

A spokesperson for the California Department of Consumer Affairs, which oversees the CSAC, said in a statement emailed to The Times that the commission is “committed to protecting the safety of the public and integrity of combat sports.”

“Unsanctioned activity puts the physical and financial well-being of all those involved at risk and such activity will not be tolerated,” the statement said.

An X post by Liv on Sept. 30 indicated he’s not overly concerned about the cease-and-desist order.

“We made it boys,” he wrote in the post, which also included a photo of the commission’s letter.

Liv said in an email to The Times on Tuesday that REK did not seek CSAC approval before the event “because the law clearly states it is not a real boxing match if it doesn’t include ‘two persons,’” rather than a human vs. a humanoid robot controlled by a human.

“So they can argue in court that actuators are somehow persons,” he said. “The case would give us nonstop media coverage, even if we incurred a fine.”

LaPenna also appeared to make light of the cease-and-desist order in a pair of X posts on Oct. 1.

“I fought a robot and within 12 days the state of California passes a new law saying no more robot vs. human fights,” wrote LaPenna, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this article.

He added in the second post: “Good work Cix, you disrupted the system.”

According to Liv, LaPenna pushed for the opportunity to face humanoid opponents in the cage.

“We felt the robots were ready to fight amateur fighters like Frankie, but not actual MMA fighters yet,” Liv said.

The 29-year-old content creator signed a full waiver of liability, but “we didn’t actually want to hurt him,” Liv added.

The written description accompanying a “Human vs. Robot” video posted on REK and LaPenna’s YouTube pages states that “there was no predetermined outcome, both Frankie and Nick, the robot operator were told to try their best.”

Wearing spiked gloves, a helmet and protective padding, the 5-foot-6, 205-pound LaPenna held his own against all three bots. He dominated his first opponent, referred to at the fight as “the child robot.” Next came an imposing “Terminator”-inspired humanoid, which was listed on the fight video as 6-feet and 200 pounds with a kick force of 850 pounds.

The robot landed several hard kicks, including one that knocked LaPenna across the mat and another with an impact that brought the humanoid to the ground and caused its head to come off — but the human seemed to gain strength as the match went on and eventually stood triumphantly with his foot on the machine’s crumpled body.

LaPenna was dominant early in his final match, in which he faced a robot that resembled a “Predator” from the movies of the same name. After landing several punches and kicks and taking his opponent to the ground multiple times, LaPenna eventually became fatigued and called for the match to be ended.

“He doesn’t get tired. He doesn’t stay down,” LaPenna said in a postmatch interview. “Just keeps getting up. I thought he’d be dead.”

According to Liv, LaPenna emerged from the bouts basically unscathed. “The only damage he experienced was hurting his hand a bit by punching metal,” Liv said.

Since then, REK has turned its attention back to all-robot fights, although Liv said the company eventually plans to stage more human vs. humanoid bouts.

“We are avoiding it for now,” Liv said. “CSAC has no legal case but it may not be worth the battle. We may just do it in Vegas or a state that is less lame.”