A Florida Republican lawmaker has sparked controversy by introducing legislation aimed at adding President Donald Trump's face to the iconic Mount Rushmore. On January 30, 2025, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to call for the carving of Trump's visage alongside those of other revered presidents.
Luna justified her proposal by highlighting Trump's so-called "remarkable accomplishments" and citing his leadership style as deserving of such monumental recognition. "President Trump’s bold leadership and steadfast dedication to America’s greatness have cemented his place in history," she stated. This sentiment echoes historical arguments made for the original four presidents carved by Gutzon Borglum, chosen for their significance during pivotal moments in American history.
The notion of modifying this national monument, which currently features George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt, has sparked diverse reactions among the public. During their visit to Mount Rushmore, some tourists expressed support for the idea, reflecting on Trump's influence over the last few years. A woman from Nebraska remarked, "I think it’s a very prestigious thing to do," potentially indicating broader public support for the bill among certain demographics.
Conversely, other individuals voiced strong opposition, emphasizing the potential risks of altering such historic landmarks. One visitor articulated concern, saying, "This is a work of art, and I just don’t feel comfortable defacing it by changing it at this point." That sentiment was echoed by other visitors who felt changing Mount Rushmore could obscure its historical narrative.
Trump himself has long joked about being included on the monument. At one rally, he mused about the possibility, seemingly merging jest with genuine aspiration when he acknowledged the media might judge him harshly if he expressed serious interest. Former South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, confirming her support for Trump, even gifted him with a bust representing his likeness during his presidency, alluding to his aspirations for the monument.
The legislation has gained traction, bolstered by endorsements from various corners. One such supporter, former Rep. Jason Chaffetz, commented, "If there’s room up there, I think it’d be great. I think what Donald Trump has done, and is in the process of doing, is transforming the United States of America and putting America first." Media personalities and former administration officials have echoed these ideas, framing them within the broader narrative of Trump’s impact on American politics.
While there are advocates for the bill drawing parallels between Trump’s tenure and the foundational accomplishments of Mount Rushmore’s original honorees, many citizens are concerned about the ramifications of altering such a prominently recognized symbol. A visitor from New Mexico poignantly noted, “I’m Egyptian, so it’d be like if you add another pyramid on top of the pyramid that's been built. Why would you?” This reflection captures the gravity of concerns surrounding the preservation of historical landmarks.
The complexity of this proposal lies not solely within the artistic merits but also about the political and cultural ramifications of altering recognized national symbols. Changing Mount Rushmore may prompt discussions about whose legacy is worthy of honor and how contemporary figures interact with American history.
On one hand, proponents argue Trump’s presidency—highlighted by economic shifts, foreign policy negotiations, and national security measures—merits such recognition. On the other hand, opponents are concerned the modification may lead to divisive sentiments among Americans, potentially detracting from the collective celebration of the monument.
The proposed bill to carve Trump’s face onto Mount Rushmore stands at the intersection of political ambition and national pride. It encapsulates the heated discourse surrounding Trump’s contributions to America, fueling the juxtaposition of historical reverence and contemporary hyper-partisanship.
With discussions surrounding Trump and his political legacy expected to evolve, the fate of this bill remains uncertain. Lawmakers and the public await any forthcoming developments, and the debate reveals the challenging dynamics of how leaders are memorialized. The dialogue around this proposal could have lasting effects on the nation's perceptions of political legacies and the symbols representing them.