More than a decade ago, I founded the Global War on Terror Memorial Foundation alongside a group of extraordinary Americans who served our country during our nation’s longest war.
The initial group, which expanded to towering figures like Jan Scruggs — who founded the Vietnam Wall — Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Jim Conway, sought to create a sacred place on the National Mall where service, sacrifice, loss and healing could be recognized. It was not only for the generation that fought these wars, but for generations yet to come.
That mission has since been entrusted to a new board of directors and executive leadership team. Their recent unveiling of the proposed memorial design has generated significant controversy. But the controversy surrounding the design is not the problem. It is a symptom of a much larger failure.
The widespread criticism from veterans, military families, Gold Star families, lawmakers and members of the public reveals a troubling reality: many of the very people this memorial was intended to honor do not believe they were meaningfully represented in the process that produced it.
Memorials derive their legitimacy not only from artistic excellence, but from public trust.
This moment is particularly disappointing because so many stakeholders participated in the process in good faith. Veterans and Gold Star family members dedicated their time, shared deeply personal experiences and offered valuable perspectives because they wanted to help create a place of remembrance worthy of a generation’s service and sacrifice.
They are not responsible for the backlash we are witnessing.
The people who contributed to this effort should not be forced to defend the outcome of a process they did not control. Their participation reflected a sincere commitment to honoring those who served and sacrificed. The responsibility for the current controversy rests with the Foundation’s leadership and the decisions that shaped the process from beginning to end.
The failure is not just one of intent, but of leadership, governance and process.
The Foundation’s leadership bears responsibility for the erosion of trust that has followed. As a congressionally authorized foundation entrusted with donated funds and a national mission, it has an obligation to maintain the confidence of the community it serves.
The concerns raised in recent days extend beyond the memorial’s design. They also raise legitimate questions about stewardship and organizational priorities.
Since 2022, the Foundation has shifted from a reported $1.5 million surplus to two consecutive years of operating deficits, even as senior compensation expanded significantly.
Public filings show salaries and benefits increased from $353,678 in 2022 to $1.148 million in 2023 — a year-over-year increase of more than 225%. By 2024, salaries and benefits had risen again to approximately $1.574 million, accounting for nearly half of all Foundation expenses.
Most concerning, the Foundation’s reported spending on salaries and benefits exceeded its reported memorial design and construction program expenses in 2024.
These figures do not necessarily indicate wrongdoing. They do, however, raise reasonable questions about governance, priorities and whether the Foundation is fulfilling its responsibility as a steward of donor funds and a congressionally authorized national mission.
Veterans, Gold Star families, donors and the American public deserve transparency, accountability and confidence that resources are being directed first and foremost toward building a memorial worthy of the generation it is intended to honor.
Trust has clearly been diminished. Time has been lost. Resources have been expended. Most importantly, an opportunity to unite the post-9/11 generation around a shared vision for remembrance has been squandered.
The stakes here are far larger than a flawed design proposal. A new course of action must be decisive.
First, the Foundation’s leadership must take full responsibility for this failure and abandon the current design. Full stop.
The issue is no longer whether the design is aesthetically successful. The design has failed to earn the confidence of a substantial portion of the community it was intended to honor. Once that trust is lost, continuing down the same path only deepens the divide.
Second, new leadership is needed at the Foundation. This review should include not only the executive team but also the board of directors. Restoring trust will require more than defending past decisions — it will mean demonstrating that the organization is willing to make meaningful changes and embrace a new direction.
Third, the Foundation should return to the founding team’s original vision for the design process: a national design competition modeled after the process used to select the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
Multiple concepts should be publicly presented, debated and refined. The final design should be selected through a transparent process that gives veterans and Gold Star families a leading voice in determining how their generation’s service and sacrifice will be remembered.
Such an approach would invite participation rather than division. It would allow ideas to evolve in public view and ensure that the memorial ultimately reflects the people it is intended to honor.
Finally, an apology is owed to the veterans, Gold Star families and members of the design committee who invested countless hours, expertise and emotional energy into this effort. Their participation was motivated by a sincere desire to honor sacrifice and preserve history. Whatever disagreements exist about the outcome, their commitment deserves respect and gratitude.
The vision that inspired the Foundation’s creation remains within reach. But achieving it will require acknowledging what this moment has revealed and taking decisive action to restore trust.
Beyond blame, there should be recognition that a process has failed to produce the unity, confidence and sense of shared ownership that a national memorial demands.
This moment should be viewed as an opportunity to recommit ourselves to the mission, to listen more carefully, to engage more broadly and to build something worthy of the people it is meant to honor.
A national memorial cannot just be designed for a generation. It must be crafted alongside those it represents.
If we embrace that principle, this controversy may ultimately be remembered as the moment we recommitted ourselves to building a memorial worthy of the Americans it was always meant to honor.
Andrew J. Brennan founded the Global War on Terror Memorial Foundation in 2015. A veteran, entrepreneur and advocate for the post-9/11 military community, he currently owns and operates a logistics company and lives in Northern Virginia with his family.
