Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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

Connecticut Promised To Invest in Community-Based Care. Twenty-Six Years Later, We’re Still Waiting.
Getty Images, fotostorm

Connecticut Promised To Invest in Community-Based Care. Twenty-Six Years Later, We’re Still Waiting.

The following letter is in response to "Lamont vetoed HB 5002. What could the reworked bill include?" published by the CT Mirror.

In 1999, Connecticut made a promise. As the state downsized psychiatric institutions, leaders pledged to reinvest those funds into home and community-based services. The goal was clear: honor the Olmstead decision, reduce unnecessary institutionalization, and build systems that support people where they live—with dignity, autonomy, and care.

Keep ReadingShow less
USAID flag outside a building
A USAID flag outside a building.
J. David Ake/Getty Images

A Glimmer of Hope in a Season of Cruelty

In a recent interview, New York Times and Atlantic contributor Peter Wehner did not mince words about President Trump’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and slashing of funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). “This to me was an act of wanton cruelty,” Wehner said. “You really had to go out of your way to think, ‘How can I kill millions of people quickly, efficiently?’ And they found one way to do it, which is to shatter USAID.”

Wehner is not alone in his outrage. At the 2025 Aspen Ideas Festival, fellow conservative columnist David Brooks echoed the sentiment: “That one decision [gutting USAID] fills me with a kind of rage that I don’t usually experience.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Court to Trump: Your Tariffs Are Illegal

Activists of different trade unions burn an effigy of US President Donald Trump to protest against the recent tariff hikes imposed by the US on India during a demonstration in Kolkata on August 13, 2025.

(Photo by DIBYANGSHU SARKAR/AFP via Getty Images)

Court to Trump: Your Tariffs Are Illegal

The stage for a potential Supreme Court showdown is set after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that most of former President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs were unlawful.

Trump imposed a series of tariffs, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 as justification. He declared national emergencies over trade deficits and drug trafficking to impose levies on countries, including China, Canada, Mexico, and nearly all U.S. trading partners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mamdani & The Socialism Canard
File:Zohran Mamdani at the Resist Fascism Rally in Bryant Park on ...

Mamdani & The Socialism Canard

Every time Democrats propose having the government provide new assistance to those in need or a new regulation of business, the Republicans cry out, “This is Socialism.”

But after Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, his fellow Democrats beat them to it. They were aroused primarily, I think, because they feared what a negative reaction to Mamdani from big business would do to Democrats' chances nationally in the upcoming mid-term elections. They should be ashamed of themselves for having become so beholden to big business and for joining Republicans in criticizing by labeling a suggestion for dealing with current societal problems that is consistent with our form of economy.

Keep ReadingShow less