“I’m not against monuments,” he adds. “Half the ones people argue about now, I helped stabilize.”
He aligns the blueprint carefully, tapping its edge square against the table.
“Monuments don’t just commemorate history,” he continues. “They compete with it.”
Trump’s attraction to monumental symbolism predates politics. His Manhattan developments fused architecture with brand identity decades before his presidential run. Trump Tower, completed in 1983, turned marble, brass, and gold leaf into marketing language. Visibility replaced subtlety. Presence replaced restraint.⁷
Architect Tamara Peacock, who worked on Mar-a-Lago renovations, later described how personally Trump directed decorative decisions.
“He added the gold and the chandeliers… I don’t think I’d ever ordered gold plumbing.”⁷
Political scientists describe this aesthetic as personalistic symbolism — leadership styles that merge institutional authority with individual identity through spectacle, naming, and visual scale.
Comparable strategies appear across multiple political systems, though each emerges from its own cultural and historical context.
In Russia, Vladimir Putin oversaw the construction of the Main Cathedral of the Russian Armed Forces, completed in 2020 as both a military memorial and a religious monument. Russian officials described incorporating materials made from melted Nazi weaponry, deliberately merging military victory with national identity.⁸
In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan built the Ak Saray presidential complex despite court rulings challenging aspects of its legality. The project marked a visible shift from republican restraint toward imagery associated with Ottoman imperial authority.⁹
These systems are not equivalent. But they reveal a shared architectural logic: monumental construction used to align state legitimacy with individual leadership narratives.
Trump’s proposals operate within the constraints of American democracy. Yet his emphasis on branding and naming produces stylistic parallels with global traditions of leader-centered symbolic construction.
Ellison sees the connection less as ideology than as scale.
“When something gets big enough,” he says, “it stops marking time. It starts trying to define it.”
Supporters of assertive civic monuments argue that strong national symbols can unify fractured societies. They note that the Lincoln Memorial itself faced early criticism as grandiose and politically charged before becoming one of the country’s most powerful democratic symbols.¹⁰
Monuments also acquire meanings their creators never fully control.