The bill instructs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, to arrange for the carving of the figure of President Donald J. Trump on Mount Rushmore National Memorial.
It does not specify funding, timeline, or design criteria, leaving planning decisions to federal agencies after enactment. If enacted, the measure would expand the monument and raise questions about governance, budgeting, and how much a living president’s likeness should be incorporated into a long-standing national symbol.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service Director, must arrange for the carving of President Donald J. Trump on Mount Rushmore National Memorial.
Who It Affects
National Park Service staff and contractors will oversee planning and execution; federal procurement and budgeting processes will be engaged; the Mount Rushmore site and its management framework are implicated.
Why It Matters
Alters a premier national symbol, setting a potential precedent for future additions and triggering budgeting, design, and governance considerations for a high-profile monument.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill requires federal action to add the likeness of President Donald J. Trump to Mount Rushmore.
It directs the Interior Department to arrange the carving, with implementation run through the National Park Service, but it stops short of defining how the project will be funded, who will design it, or when it would be completed. The text effectively starts a planning process within existing federal procedures for modifications to a major national monument, without spelling out a timetable or cost ceiling.
Practically, enactment would mobilize NPS staff to scope the project, issue any needed contracts, and coordinate with federal agencies on approvals. It would also influence budgeting conversations within Interior and NPS to determine whether funds are available and how the project fits into monument stewardship priorities.
The policy signal is significant: it treats Mount Rushmore as a dynamic site capable of expanding its cohort of figures, which in turn raises questions about symbolism, collection of costs, and long-term maintenance for the site.In terms of governance, the bill relies on established Interior and NPS processes to manage design, procurement, and preservation work. While the text does not specify design standards, environmental reviews, or community input, those mechanisms are typically invoked for monumental changes and would likely shape any practical implementation if the bill progresses.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Interior to arrange for carving Trump's figure on Mount Rushmore.
It directs action through the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the National Park Service.
There is no explicit funding authorization or timeline in the bill text.
Mount Rushmore National Memorial is the site affected by the proposed change.
If enacted, the proposal would set a precedent for presidential depictions on the monument.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Addition of President Trump to Mount Rushmore
The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, shall arrange for the carving of the figure of President Donald J. Trump on Mount Rushmore National Memorial. This provision directs administrative action within existing federal structures for a major modification to a national monument, but it does not specify funding, a deadline, or design criteria. The result is a formal starting point for planning, procurement, and coordination with relevant stakeholders as part of Mount Rushmore’s ongoing stewardship.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Culture across all five countries.
Explore Culture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- National Park Service officials overseeing Mount Rushmore gain clear statutory direction to plan and oversee the project, enabling formal scoping and budgeting within existing processes.
- Federally contracted sculptors, design firms, and construction contractors would be engaged through federal procurement to execute the carving.
- Tourism-related businesses in Keystone and the Black Hills region could see shifts in visitation patterns as the monument’s symbolism evolves and attention increases.
- Federal policymakers and Interior agencies would gain experience managing high-profile alterations to major national memorials, informing future decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal taxpayers funding the planning, design, and carving would fund the project through appropriations.
- Interior and National Park Service budgets would need to allocate staff time and resources to manage design, procurement, and oversight.
- Contractors and suppliers involved in design, materials, and construction would incur project-related costs.
- Local governments and nearby communities might face indirect costs related to changes in tourism dynamics and infrastructure needs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to alter a nationally cherished commemorative site to accommodate a living president's likeness, weighing symbolic expansion against preservation ideals and the practical realities of funding and governance.
The bill creates a high-profile alteration to a long-standing national symbol without detailing cost controls, timelines, or design standards. This raises questions about funding sources, environmental and cultural reviews, and how such a modification would be evaluated against Mount Rushmore’s preservation and interpretation goals.
Without explicit procedural guardrails, implementation would rely on existing agency processes, which may lead to delays or tensions if stakeholders seek to influence design and budget decisions.
A core tension is balancing the monument’s historic identity with a contemporary addition that carries strong political resonance. The absence of clear funding and process guidelines means debates over budget, accountability, and public input could arise as the project moves forward, potentially shaping how future memorials are modified.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.