It seems that the return to traditional architectural styles demanded by the presidential administration was inspired not only by aesthetic or ideological motives. Buildings of classical architecture are designed to return respect for the power and the constitution, to remind us of the antiquity of such things as law and human rights. Modernist architecture completely breaks with the idea of ​​reviving tradition, but it is a continuation and logical stage in the development of culture as a whole.
Aesthetic criteria are linked to the principle of reverence for traditional cultural-historical models. This approach seems overly conservative and inhibits architectural development. Moreover, it can be said with great confidence that it would have generated a few architectural masterpieces. This kind of construction requires not only design thinking but also inspiration. The construction of buildings that copy the architectural standards of other civilizations is doomed to be only a semblance. But if you apply this architectural model to all buildings in America, the quality of projects will decrease, and one may end up in a country where bad taste reigns. Of course, the architecture would look impressive and would resonate with traditional culture lovers, who are the majority. However, the full implementation of such a project risks slowing down the development of the architecture for a long time.
It seems that it is the architects hired that have to decide what the federal building should look like. It does not belong to politicians who always occupy only a temporary occupation in it. Thus, the architect must be aware that he is building buildings of the present and the future and focus on future generations and not on previous styles. But ordinary citizens also play a role in this, whose perception of both the city and the government largely depends on the surrounding architecture.