The Democracy in Design Act (DDA) has been reintroduced in the US Senate by Senators Chris Van Hollen (Democrat, Maryland) and Ben Ray Luján (Democrat, New Mexico). The primary goal of the bill is to counter and nullify the executive orders issued by President Donald Trump mandating a preference for traditional and classical architecture for new federal buildings. The DDA seeks to codify the “Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture” that have been in place since the 1960s, delegating design choices to local communities. This ensures that public buildings reflect the diversity of the nation and meet the specific needs of the communities they serve, rather than conforming to a single aesthetic template.
The Purpose and Counterpoint to the Executive Order
The DDA was reintroduced shortly after President Donald Trump reinstated his executive order, the “Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture,” on the first day of his second term in January 2025. This order once again declared “traditional and classical” styles as the “preferred modes of architectural design” for federal buildings.
The DDA was born to protect the democratic nature and diversity of the design process. It directly opposes the “one-size-fits-all” mandate imposed by the President’s order, which risks excluding modern architectural styles, such as Modernism. Supporters of the DDA, including the American Institute of Architects (AIA), believe that mandating a specific architectural style goes against democratic values and restricts the creativity and local choice of communities.
Codifying the Guiding Principles of the 1960s
The core value of the Democracy in Design Act lies in codifying the “Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture,” which have been in place since the 1960s and were challenged by the Trump Executive Order. These principles focus on delegating design decisions to the local level.
Instead of specifying a particular style (like neoclassicism, Art Deco, or Romanesque), the Guiding Principles emphasize that design should achieve the highest quality and be most appropriate for the local environment. This ensures that federal architecture can freely evolve and adapt to the specific culture, climate, and needs of individual communities across the United States. Codifying these principles turns them into law, making them significantly harder to overturn with a simple executive order.
Political Response and the War of Styles
The reintroduction of the DDA immediately triggered a counter-response. Republican Senator Jim Banks and the president of the National Civic Art Society announced their forthcoming bill, the “Beautifying Federal Civic Architecture Act,” which aims to codify the President’s executive order itself.
This opposing bill calls for a “preference” for classical and traditional styles, which its proponents argue express “Western values.” This sets up a clear political and ideological battle over the role of public architecture: on one side, design freedom, local diversity, and respect for Modern values; on the other, a preference for historical styles to project a defined cultural identity. The AIA has strongly supported the DDA, viewing it as an act to “preserve democratic values in the design process.”
