Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: adding Donald Trump’s face to Mount Rushmore

News

Congress Bill Spotlight: adding Donald Trump’s face to Mount Rushmore

Mount Rushmore in South Dakota.

Getty Images, Jacobs Stock Photography Ltd

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

“You must not know Trump very well,” comedian Seth Meyers quipped, “if you expect him to share a mountain with four other guys.”


The Bill

A bill in Congress would carve President Donald Trump’s face into Mount Rushmore alongside George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt.

According to the legislative text, Trump’s face would be added, rather than replacing an existing one. It also doesn’t specify where exactly Trump’s face would go; surely the middle is a logistical impossibility, so presumably, it would either be to Washington’s left or Lincoln’s right.

The House bill was introduced on January 28 by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL13). The bill does not appear to have a title. No Senate companion version appears to have been introduced yet.

Context

Sculpted by Gutzon Borglum and completed in 1941, the South Dakota monument stands among America’s most iconic landmarks. The facade depicts the giant faces of four presidents whom a 2021 C-SPAN presidential historians survey ranked #1 (Lincoln), #2 (Washington), #4 (Roosevelt), and #7 (Jefferson).

The site notched 2.3 million visitors in 2023, the last year for which statistics are available. On Independence Day in 2020, Trump attended a fireworks display and delivered a speech at the site, after which South Dakota’s then-Gov. Kristi Noem presented him with a figurine depicting Trump’s face added to the mountain. (Noem is now Trump’s Secretary of Homeland Security.)

While the present was a joke, the idea was serious enough for South Dakota’s at-large Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) to introduce the Mount Rushmore Protection Act. The bill would have prevented the monument’s alteration in any significant way, whether it’s adding a face like Trump’s or removing a face, as there were calls to remove Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves.

The bill attracted 38 cosponsors but never received a committee vote. Rep. Johnson subsequently introduced the bill in 2022 and 2023, with the 2023 version even receiving a hearing before the House Natural Resource Committee’s Subcommittee on Federal Lands. Still, no version has received a vote.

What Supporters Say

Supporters argue that Trump has merited his place alongside the four depicted presidents.

“President Trump’s bold leadership and steadfast dedication to America’s greatness have cemented his place in history,” Rep. Luna said in a press release. “Mount Rushmore, a timeless symbol of our nation’s freedom and strength, deserves to reflect his towering legacy — a legacy further solidified by the powerful start to his second term.”

Needless to say, one other likely supporter is the president himself.

The New York Times reported that White House aides contacted the South Dakota governor’s office in 2020, inquiring about the process for potentially adding one or more faces to the monument. Trump disputed the report but added, “Although, based on all of the many things accomplished during the first 3½ years, perhaps more than any other presidency, sounds like a good idea to me!”

What Opponents Say

Obviously, Democrats oppose the bill because they don’t want to memorialize Trump in that way. But some Republicans may oppose the bill too.

One potential Republican line of opposition could be that Trump is still alive. When Mount Rushmore was unveiled, all four depicted presidents had already died, the last being Roosevelt in 1919. For a similar reason, U.S. postal stamps can only depict people who died at least three years prior.

Another Republican line of argument: the monument is finished, as is. “In more than one instance, there have been discussions – whether serious or joking – about adding someone’s face to Mount Rushmore. In every instance, these proposals have been rejected,” South Dakota’s state Sen. Helene Duhamel (R) testified before Congress. “It is a complete work of art, displayed for the ages.”

Finally: logistics. “The rock that surrounds the sculpted faces is not suitable for additional carving,” Mount Rushmore’s Chief of Interpretation and Education Maureen McGee-Ballinger told a South Dakota newspaper, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

Odds of Passage

The bill has attracted zero cosponsors so far, not even any Republicans. It awaits a potential vote in the House Natural Resources Committee, controlled by Republicans.

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.

Read More

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less