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

Texas Capitol building

Texas Capitol, Austin

Texas GOP’s Closed-Primary Push Hits Pause. The Next Fight Is in Austin

Austin, Texas—A federal court effectively told the Republican Party of Texas Friday that—at least for now—if they want primary elections closed, they will have to convince their members in the legislature to do it. This puts the matter on hold until the 2027 legislative session.

It wasn’t a dismissal. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of Texas’ open primary system. Instead, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk paused the GOP’s lawsuit, stating that the Legislature may soon take steps to close the state’s primary elections on its own.

Keep ReadingShow less
First Amendment being torn

First Amendment text of the US Constitution ripped in half -- Freedom of Speech , Religion or Press unconstitutional concept

Getty Images

Lawsuit Says Press Access Is Essential to Democratic Accountability

When POLITICO, CNN, and MS NOW announced Monday that they were filing a federal lawsuit to restore their reporters’ access to the White House, they challenged more than the sudden and unexplained revocation of press credentials. They underscored a fundamental constitutional principle: a free press does not operate at the government's discretion.

According to their joint statement, the outlets are seeking urgent relief after the Secret Service denied their reporters entry to the White House complex on Saturday and confiscated their credentials. The action followed recent stories by these outlets examining the administration’s handling of classified documents and raising questions about transparency related to policy meetings. They wrote, “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Cropped shot of a group of people joining their hands in solidarity

A new union political director explains why labor membership has halved since 1983 even as public approval hits record highs—and what's driving the gap.

LumiNola/Getty Images

The Ongoing Fight for Bread and Roses

Last Monday, I started a new job as the political director for IBEW 569, a local electrical workers' union based here in San Diego. In talking to friends about what I’m doing–while learning, fast, in real time, how to do the job myself–it occurred to me that there’s actually quite a knowledge gap in society today regarding an understanding of what unions are and what they’re supposed to do. So let’s get into it.

A union is, at its core, a group of workers who agree to negotiate together instead of alone. One worker asking a boss for a raise has almost no leverage. A thousand workers asking together hits different. That leverage of teamwork, that collective bargaining, is how the overtime pay, workplace safety standards, and employer-sponsored health insurance all came to exist in this country. None of it was handed down out of corporate goodwill. Fair wages (bread) and dignity (roses) were won, often at real cost. In 1890, the average workweek for manufacturing employees and building tradesmen was around 100 hours or more. Workers in Chicago who rallied for an eight-hour workday faced police violence, but we have that and weekends now because people were willing to lose their jobs, and sometimes their lives, to organize for it.

Keep ReadingShow less
A woman sitting down and speaking with a group of people.

Research shows Americans see political opponents as more extreme than reality. Learn how closing this 'perception gap' can restore civil discourse.

Getty Images, Luis Alvarez

Closing Perception Gaps Strengthens the Whole Democracy Ecosystem

Perception gaps — misunderstandings about our fellow Americans across the political spectrum — are damaging the fabric of our country. Correcting these gaps is essential to preserving the kind of democracy that respects free speech, individual dignity, and civic responsibility.

At their core, perception gaps reflect a tendency to see those in the other party as more extreme and worse than they actually are. Too often, Americans assume their political opponents are more hostile, closed-minded, dishonest, or even supportive of political violence and rule-breaking than in reality. These caricatures drive fear and division.

Keep ReadingShow less