Justifying the existence of the government commission in terms of a tangible benefit to the public would dispel doubts that it is worth keeping… A point of the question is that disapproving of bullshit firings is not enough to justify a government commission: we may need a separate justification to understand this is absolutely worth fighting for & that would make a more compelling reason to oppose Trump over it.

No one was talking about axing the commission until you showed up. It is not obvious to me from your question the point was about justifying the existence of the commission in a thread about about the firing of the heads of the commission because they had negative review of the 2 vanity projects because sacking the heads does not change its funding status.

We shouldn’t have to state our inner thoughts or explain ourselves to pose a question.

You certainly don’t have to but then it forces others to fave to read into your thoughts to respond. You say I think I’m psychic but it only comes across that way when you’re not sharing what your thoughts are or explaining. We’ve moved past that because you’ve laid out what your thoughts were. Since you have I don’t think it really matters where you stand on the reason for the firings because it seems you’re saying the firing is justified because the commission doesn’t yield objective value (while at the same time acknowledging the firing has no impact on the commissions spending).

Anyway I did some research, here’s a response to your initial question:

• The commission has ensured that taxpayer-funded buildings and infrastructure contribute to the civic environment - often preventing costly design mistakes or preserving assets that would be expensive (or impossible) to recover once lost. This gets to my point earlier that they oppose monstrosities like “Arc de Trump” which is something I think you’d agree with is wasteful.
• They had a pivotal role in transforming Washington, D.C. into a coherent national capital. In the 1900s, Washington’s core was disorganized - eg a railroad ran across the National Mall. The CFA pushed a blueprint to create the National Mall into a broad, open vista linking the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial. They oversaw the planning of entire complexes like the Federal Triangle and guided a consistent architectural style. This is not just subjective. They helped create a functionally organized city that accommodates public gatherings, national ceremonies, and tourism. Millions visit these well-planned public spaces each year. At the very least, this “objectively” brings millions of dollars from international visitors.
• the CFA played a central role in the creation of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial which is one of the most acclaimed war memorials in the world. Regardless of your view of the military, monuments like that help give it the impression of respect and honor to soldiers which is important for recruitment. They also review designs for military medals and insignia like the purple heart and medal of honor. Here’s a fun idea - under the next 6 commissioners what do you think the next military medal will look like? A gilded profile of Trump?

The CFA mandate is rooted in the understanding that architecture and urban design are matters of public interest, not just subjective taste. You asked for something non-subjective? The buildings are physical objects standing right there in DC, what is more objective and concrete than actual concrete?

Edit - to be fair I did see spending that seems low valued and pretty loosely aligned to their mandate. $400 million for 2024 for these recipients seems pretty steep. But to say there’s no value in the CFA goes too far and funding of the CFA is a different topic entirely that what is focused on by the OP article which is about Trump firing what is supposed to be an independent organization because he didn’t like their report. The government benefits from independent, non-political groups to ground itself in reality and the inference to be gained from the article is that Trump is bulldozing that concept.