Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: Honor Inauguration Day Act

News

Congress Bill Spotlight: Honor Inauguration Day Act

The U.S. Capitol is seen through American flags flying at half staff in Washington, D.C., U.S.

Getty Images, Bloomberg Creative Photos

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.

The American flag at the Capitol Building almost flew at half-staff during Trump’s inauguration. Should that be allowed?


The Bill

The Honor Inauguration Day Act would require the American flag be flown at its highest peak, never half-staff, on a presidential inauguration day.

The House bill was introduced on January 13 by Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-TX15). No Senate companion version appears to have been introduced yet.

Context

Following the death of a president or former president, the American flag is required to fly at half-staff for 30 days at all federal buildings and facilities. One of the most prominent such federal buildings is the U.S. Capitol.

When former President Jimmy Carter died on December 29, 2024, that meant the flag was supposed to fly at half-staff until January 28, 2025. That period would have included Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration at the Capitol on January 20.

Trump protested this possibility. “The Democrats are all giddy about our magnificent American flag potentially being at ‘half mast’ during my Inauguration,” Trump posted to Truth Social on January 3. “Nobody wants to see this, and no American can be happy about it. Let’s see how it plays out.”

How it actually played out: Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA4), who only had authority over the U.S. Capitol Building, ordered flags raised there on January 20 only. It almost didn’t happen, though—the weather in D.C. was so cold that particular morning that the flags’ cords froze.

Shortly after taking office, Trump ordered that the American flag be raised for the rest of the day at all federal facilities, from the White House to embassies overseas. He ordered flags lowered back to half-staff in Carter’s memory once again from January 21 to 28.

While Trump’s proclamation declared it the new policy “on this and all future inauguration days,” that’s not actually codified in federal law, so it could be instantly overturned by a future president. Thus, this bill from Congress.

What Supporters Say

Supporters argue that on a day intended for happiness and unification, the flag shouldn’t be flown in a position of sorrow and mourning.

“President Biden has decided… to fly the flag at half-staff during a successor's inauguration. Meaning, when President Trump is sworn in, the flag will not be fully raised,” Rep. De La Cruz said in a press release. “Inauguration Day celebrates the will of the American people and their sacred right to vote and determine their own governance. It is not a day for the flag to be at half-staff.”

What Opponents Say

Opponents counter that the 30-day tradition has always been followed. Indeed, during Richard Nixon’s second inauguration in 1973, flags at the Capitol flew at half-staff for former President Harry S. Truman’s death a few weeks prior. Eerie photos show the bizarre visual of an inauguration with half-staff flags waving, a sight seen neither before nor since.

Biden’s White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked whether Biden would unilaterally act to raise the flags on January 20. She replied with one word: “No.”

Odds of Passage

The bill has attracted 17 cosponsors, all Republicans. It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary 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.

SUGGESTIONS:

Congress Bill Spotlight: Panama Canal Repurchase Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: Make Greenland Great Again Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: renaming Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America”

Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term

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

Congress Bill Spotlight: BAD DOGE Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: Repealing Trump’s National Energy Emergency


Read More

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

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

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

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