Hegseth and Mullin File Sworn Statements Supporting Trump Arch on National Security Grounds

The use of sworn federal court filings by two Cabinet secretaries to defend an executive construction project places the dispute in the judicial record, creating a legal standard the...

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin submitted sworn statements to a federal court on October 28, 2026, asserting that a triumphal arch construction project sought by President Trump is necessary for national security, according to a report by The New York Times.

The statements were filed in an ongoing federal court proceeding. The exact court, case number, and docket have not been specified in available public reporting as of the publication of this article. Those details would be contained in the court's electronic filing system, which is publicly searchable through PACER.

A sworn statement submitted to a federal court carries legal weight distinct from ordinary public statements. If a sworn declaration contains material falsehoods, the submitting party can face charges of perjury or making false statements under 18 U.S.C. Section 1621 or Section 1001. By filing sworn declarations, both secretaries have placed themselves personally on the legal record in defense of the project.

The involvement of the Secretary of Defense in a proceeding involving a domestic construction project is procedurally notable. The Department of Defense's legal authority over domestic construction is generally limited to military installations and projects authorized under Title 10 of the United States Code. The specific statutory basis cited by Hegseth in his declaration is not yet known from available public reporting. A review of the filed declaration through PACER would identify the legal authority invoked.

Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security's role in the proceeding, as reflected by Mullin's declaration, is not fully explained in available reporting. DHS jurisdiction over construction projects typically falls under physical security of federal facilities or infrastructure protection authorities. The precise authority cited by Mullin is also not yet known and would appear in his filed declaration.

The project itself, a triumphal arch sought by President Trump, has not been described in detail in available sourcing, including its proposed location, cost, funding mechanism, or the contracting agency. USASpending.gov and the General Services Administration's contract database would contain any federally obligated funds associated with the project. As of publication, no specific contract award tied to the project has been identified in those databases.

If federal funds are involved, the project would also be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and potentially the Antideficiency Act, depending on whether appropriations have been specifically authorized by Congress for the purpose. None of those reviews have been referenced in current available sourcing.

The decision by the administration to route its defense of the project through the courts, rather than through a congressional authorization or agency rulemaking process, is a procedural choice. Courts evaluating national security claims by the executive branch typically apply a deferential standard under doctrines established in cases such as Dep't of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), though that deference has limits when constitutional or statutory violations are alleged.

The identity of the party or parties challenging the construction project in court is not specified in available reporting. The plaintiff or plaintiffs, their legal standing, and the precise relief they are seeking would all be detailed in the court's publicly accessible docket.

Several material facts remain unknown as of this publication: the name and jurisdiction of the court hearing the case, the full text of the Hegseth and Mullin declarations, the funding source and total estimated cost of the arch, the contracting agency, the project's proposed location, and the legal theory under which both secretaries assert national security necessity. The court docket, accessible through PACER using the case name or parties involved, would resolve each of those questions. Federal contract data would be available through USASpending.gov.