New Federal Architecture Bill Mandates Classical Styles, Restricts Modern Designs, and Creates GSA 'Aesthetic Police'

The “Beautifying Federal Civic Architecture Act of 2025” is essentially a national mandate declaring that federal buildings must look a certain way: classical or traditional. This isn't just a suggestion; it sets a formal U.S. policy that public buildings should be “inspiring,” “respectable,” and generally show off the country’s greatness, with classical architecture as the default choice, especially in Washington, D.C. If you’re building a new federal courthouse, agency headquarters, or any federal building costing over $50 million (adjusted for inflation from 2025), this bill is the new rulebook.

The New Look: Columns Over Concrete

For the average person, this means the future federal buildings in your city are probably going to look like they were designed a century ago, favoring styles like Neoclassical, Greek Revival, or Art Deco over anything contemporary. The bill specifically defines and restricts styles like Brutalist architecture (the massive, block-like concrete structures) and Deconstructivist architecture (the fragmented, distorted look). If the General Services Administration (GSA) wants to approve a design that looks like one of those non-preferred styles, the Administrator has to send a detailed, 30-day notification to the White House, explaining why the non-preferred design is better than a preferred classical design that would cost the same. That’s a serious bureaucratic hurdle designed to steer projects toward columns and away from concrete blocks.

The GSA Gets an Architectural Makeover

To enforce this aesthetic shift, the bill requires the GSA to overhaul its internal operations. First, they have to hire a new Senior Advisor for Architectural Design who must have specialized experience in classical or traditional architecture. Second, any GSA architect reviewing or approving designs must also have formal training or significant experience in these preferred styles (Section 5). Think of it as the GSA now having an internal architectural police force specifically trained to spot and approve only certain looks. This is a huge shift that will likely benefit firms specializing in traditional design while making it much harder for architects known for modern or innovative styles to land a government contract.

The Taxpayer and the Remodel Question

One provision that could hit taxpayers is the rule about existing buildings. The bill requires federal agencies to look at their current buildings that don't meet these new aesthetic standards—maybe that brutalist DMV office you visit—and determine if it’s “practical and affordable” to redesign the exterior to meet the new classical criteria (Section 2). If it is, they have to seriously consider it. This opens the door to potentially massive, unplanned spending on aesthetic renovations for buildings that are otherwise functional. While the goal is to make civic spaces look better, the cost of adding columns and cornices to an existing structure could become a significant budget item for the GSA.

Who Gets a Say?

The bill does mandate that agencies must get “significant input” from the local community when picking designs, which is a good step toward local control (Section 2). However, when defining the “general public” for input purposes, the bill explicitly excludes professionals like architects, engineers, professors, or anyone who stands to gain financially from the design decision (Section 3). Essentially, the bill says, “We want community input, but not from the people who actually design buildings for a living.” This limits expert critique and could lead to design decisions based on popular opinion rather than technical or architectural merit. Finally, if you hate the design they pick, don't plan on suing the government over it; Section 6 explicitly states this Act does not create any new rights or benefits that can be legally enforced against the U.S. government.