Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) introduced legislation late last week that would make classical and other traditional architectural styles the preferred choice for new federal buildings, seeking to codify an executive order issued by President Donald Trump last month.
The measure would permanently amend the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture and direct designers working on federal projects to emphasize Greco‑Roman‑inspired and traditional forms for public buildings. Trump’s executive order applied specifically to new projects expected to cost more than $50 million and allowed exceptions for other styles, including brutalism and deconstructivism, but only with the president’s permission.
"Americans want their federal buildings to reflect the strength, beauty, and tradition of our country," Banks said in a statement to The Post. "This bill ensures our architecture honors our history, includes local input from our communities, and celebrates American tradition." Kiley said the proposal would "restore the classical spirit of democracy to the architecture of our federal buildings."
The legislation would instruct the General Services Administration and other agencies that oversee federal construction to make classical and other traditional designs the first choice for public buildings. The executive order on which the bill is based included language allowing other architectural approaches by presidential waiver in certain cases; the sponsors say the bill would lock broader preference for traditional forms into law.
Proponents of the change argue that classical architecture pays homage to the ancient democracies of Greece and Rome and evokes continuity with longstanding federal landmarks such as the U.S. Capitol and the White House, which incorporate Greco‑Roman design elements. The U.S. government frequently favored such motifs in earlier eras, but federal policy shifted in the mid‑20th century. In the 1960s, then‑Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan drafted the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture, which steered federal design toward contemporary approaches.
Under the General Services Administration’s Design Excellence Program, classical design has been used in a relatively small share of federal projects; the GSA has reported that about 8% of government buildings were constructed using classical motifs. Polling cited by supporters indicates public support for traditional federal architecture: a Harris poll from October 2020 found that about 72% of Americans favored traditional designs for federal edifices.
The bill follows a string of efforts by Banks to translate executive actions favored by the Trump administration into statute. While serving in the House in 2023, Banks introduced the "Beautifying Federal Civic Architecture Act,” and he has introduced legislation to codify other presidential directives, including an order addressing ideological content in federally funded museums.
Architectural styles cited in the executive order and referenced by the bill’s backers include brutalism, known for block‑like geometric massing, and deconstructivism, characterized by fragmentation and skewed geometry. The order’s allowance for those styles by presidential waiver was framed by supporters as a guardrail against hampering projects that may require unconventional solutions.
President Trump has taken a personal interest in public aesthetics during his time in office, including changes to areas of the White House such as the Rose Garden. The proposed statute would outlast the current administration if enacted, embedding a formal preference for traditional architecture in the federal government’s governing design principles.
The bill was introduced late last week and would require congressional approval and the president’s signature to become law. Supporters framed the measure as aligning federal design with historical precedent and public taste; the measure’s prospects in a divided Congress were not immediately clear.
Legal experts and architectural groups have in past debates warned that prescriptive federal design mandates can raise questions about creative freedom, procurement processes and how aesthetic standards are applied across diverse communities and building types. The sponsors said the bill would include local input from communities affected by federal projects. Further legislative action and committee consideration will determine whether the proposal advances.
The proposal positions architectural style as an explicit element of federal policy, reviving a long‑running debate over the role of tradition and modernism in public architecture and whether federal design guidance should prioritize historical forms, contemporary innovation or a mix of approaches.