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

What Really Guides Lawmakers’ Decisions on Capitol Hill
us a flag on white concrete building

What Really Guides Lawmakers’ Decisions on Capitol Hill

The following article is excerpted from "Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."

Despite the efforts of high school social studies teachers, parents, journalists, and political scientists, the workings of our government remain a mystery to most Americans. Caricatures, misconceptions, and stereotypes dominate citizens’ views of Congress, contributing to our reluctance to engage in our democracy. In reality, the system works pretty much as we were taught in third grade. Congress is far more like Schoolhouse Rock than House of Cards. When all the details are burned away, legislators generally follow three voices when making a decision. One member of Congress called these voices the “Three H’s”: Heart, Head, and Health—meaning political health.

Keep ReadingShow less
Illustration of someone holding a strainer, and the words "fakes," "facts," "news," etc. going through it.

Trump-era misinformation has pushed American politics to a breaking point. A Truth in Politics law may be needed to save democracy.

Getty Images, SvetaZi

The Need for a Truth in Politics Law: De-Frauding American Politics

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” With those words in 1954, Army lawyer Joseph Welch took Senator Joe McCarthy to task and helped end McCarthy’s destructive un-American witch hunt. The time has come to say the same to Donald Trump and his MAGA allies and stop their vile perversion of our right to free speech.

American politics has always been rife with misleading statements and, at times, outright falsehoods. Mendacity just seems to be an ever-present aspect of politics. But with the ascendency of Trump, and especially this past year, things have taken an especially nasty turn, becoming so aggressive and incendiary as to pose a real threat to the health and well-being of our nation’s democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
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