WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has increasingly invoked national security as a rationale to advance his agenda amid growing political and legal challenges. This approach was highlighted over the weekend when Trump announced plans for a 250-foot arch near Washington, D.C., which he described as a “military complex” equipped with snipers, drones, and ammunition to bolster national security.

On September 21, Trump also declared via social media that several news organizations banned from the White House—including CNN, MSNBC, and Politico—posed a “threat to our National Security.” These actions are part of a broader pattern in the second term of the Trump administration, where national security concerns have been cited to justify a range of initiatives, from a $400 million White House ballroom expansion to the cancellation of offshore wind farm projects, deployment of National Guard troops to cities governed by Democrats, and the imposition of tariffs on foreign goods.

Legal experts note that presidents commonly use national security as a legal and political justification. However, analysts say Trump’s use of such claims is broader and more frequent than that of his predecessors, often stretching to issues with tenuous connections to security.

A senior White House official, speaking anonymously, acknowledged that while expanding national security reasons as a catch-all defense is “not ideal,” it effectively alters the legal and political landscape surrounding disputed policies. “It’s working,” the official said. Another administration official emphasized that as commander-in-chief, the president has the prerogative to protect national security, citing coordination with the White House Military Office and the Secret Service on security enhancements related to the ballroom project. The official also defended restrictions on certain news organizations, asserting that soliciting and disclosing classified information can harm U.S. security interests.

Trump’s recent moves come amidst historically low approval ratings. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released September 21, his overall approval stands at 32%, with only 17% of Americans approving of his handling of the cost of living—the electorate's top concern. Public backlash also extends to his stance on the war in Iran.

In the previous week alone, several setbacks occurred for the president: the Supreme Court rejected his effort to limit mail-in ballots; diesel fuel prices reached record highs; and a federal judge blocked plans to add Trump's name to the Kennedy Center façade. Following the latter decision, Trump threatened to halt planned renovations pending a reversal.

The arch project bears similarities to the ballroom initiative. In both cases, Trump recast the efforts as national security priorities after encountering legal hurdles and insufficient congressional support. Trump claimed on September 20 that the military requested the alterations to the arch, which would include snipers positioned on rooftops and the plaza, along with drones and large quantities of sniper ammunition—despite the site’s proximity to a busy traffic circle less than a mile from the Pentagon.

Critics view the national security justification skeptically. Senator Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, accused Trump of attempting to "exploit our military as a political shield" to push forward a monument opposed by aviation experts, veterans, and the public.

The White House official cited the July Supreme Court ruling allowing construction of the ballroom as evidence of how a security angle can deter judicial interference, especially when previous claims of presidential authority alone had failed in lower courts. The official suggested a similar strategy could be applied to disputes over press access, highlighting courts’ general deference to the president on national security matters compared to First Amendment issues.

Legal scholars warn that the administration’s broad application of national security risks diminishing the credibility and traditional deference presidents typically receive from courts and the public. James Baker, director of the Syracuse University Institute for Security Policy and Law and a former federal judge, noted that overextension of security claims could erode trust with allies and domestic actors alike.

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, courts and Congress have generally granted presidents considerable latitude on national security grounds. However, Elizabeth Goitein, a national security expert at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, cautioned that the strategy becomes problematic when extended to matters lacking a clear security connection, such as the proposed arch near the nation’s capital.