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

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less