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

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

Donald Trump Jr.' s plane landed in Nuuk, Greenland, where he made a short private visit, weeks after his father, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, suggested Washington annex the autonomous Danish territory.

(Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

In early 2025, before Donald Trump was even sworn into office, he sent a plane with his name in giant letters on it to Nuuk, Greenland, where his son, Don Jr., and other MAGA allies preened for cameras and stomped around the mineral-rich Danish territory that Trump had been casually threatening to invade or somehow acquire like stereotypical American tourists — like they owned it already.

“Don Jr. and my Reps landing in Greenland,” Trump wrote. “The reception has been great. They and the Free World need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”

Keep ReadingShow less