Put Trump on Mount Rushmore."
That’s the fiery request from Tennessee Republican Congressman Andy Ogles to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum—and no, this isn’t satire. Ogles is pushing for the addition of former President Donald J. Trump’s face to the iconic Black Hills monument alongside Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln. His proposal is catching major headlines and setting off a political firestorm as debates over legacy, patriotism, and historical relevance take center stage once again in American discourse.
What Sparked This?
In a letter to Secretary Burgum this past Thursday—one that’s now publicly circulating thanks to The Hill—Rep. Ogles made his case. He urged the Department of the Interior to "explore the addition" of Trump's likeness to Mount Rushmore, citing what he called Trump’s “accomplishments in restoring American greatness.” The timing of this pitch wasn’t random either—it came just hours after the House passed Trump's much-hyped legislative package dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”
And that’s not just a cute name. The bill, narrowly passed in a 218–214 vote and now headed for the president's signature, includes a wide range of hot-button items: tax cuts, increased border security funding, military boosts, cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, and a $5 trillion hike in the U.S. debt ceiling.
According to Ogles, that kind of sweeping legislation deserves some granite real estate.
Why It’s a Big Deal
Here’s the thing: Mount Rushmore isn’t just another tourist stop—it’s hallowed ground in both American history and political symbolism. It was carved between 1927 and 1941 in South Dakota's Black Hills, featuring four U.S. presidents known for shaping the republic: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln.
But it’s not without controversy. The land was seized from the Lakota Sioux, and in 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had taken it illegally, ordering $105 million in compensation—money the Sioux have refused in pursuit of land restoration.
Adding Trump to this already contentious canvas? You bet it's going to set off cultural and political alarm bells.
The Emotional Pitch
Ogles isn’t just advocating for a statue—he’s crafting a narrative. In his X (formerly Twitter) post, he waxed poetic, drawing bold parallels between Trump and the original Rushmore quartet.
-
Like Washington, Trump “did not seek his position for glory but out of love for his country.”
-
Like Jefferson, Trump “expanded America’s horizons” and “broke away from deep state tyrants.”
-
Like Teddy Roosevelt, he “took on entrenched interests” and “avenged the working class.”
-
And like Lincoln, well, Ogles didn’t mention him directly, but the implication is clear: Trump’s chapter in American history is, in his view, equally transformative.
To Ogles, Trump’s presidency isn’t a divisive blip—it’s a cornerstone of modern American revival.
But Can It Even Happen?
Here’s the real kicker: From a logistics and geological standpoint, the answer is almost certainly no.
Back in 2020, long before this new push, Maureen McGee-Ballinger of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial clarified the practicalities. She told the Black Hills Pioneer newspaper that “the rock that surrounds the sculpted faces is not suitable for additional carving.”
Translation: The stone won’t cooperate, no matter how motivated the politics.
Moreover, the National Park Service has consistently said that new additions to Mount Rushmore are not feasible. Aside from geological challenges, the site’s cultural and historical sensitivity—especially with respect to Native American tribes—makes any such endeavor extremely controversial.
A Trend Among Trump Allies?
Ogles isn’t the first to float the Trump-on-Rushmore idea.
Back in January, Florida Representative Anna Paulina Luna introduced a bill with the same goal. It never made it to a hearing, but it stirred up similar waves across media outlets and Capitol Hill.
Trump himself has joked about it in the past—though depending on who you ask, the joke may have been half-serious. During a 2020 campaign stop in South Dakota, he mused about how “somebody” suggested it, and while he said he was flattered, he insisted he didn’t say it himself. Of course, a few Trump campaign merch pieces did feature a mock-up of Trump’s face next to the monument… make of that what you will.
Poll Numbers Tell Their Own Story
While the idea might sound fringe to some, it’s worth noting that Trump still commands significant loyalty among GOP voters. According to a recent survey conducted between June 23 and 26, 79% of registered Republican voters approve of Trump’s performance.
Granted, that’s down slightly from 86% back in March—but it still suggests that calls like Ogles’ resonate with a solid chunk of the conservative base. Whether it’s symbolic or sincere, these gestures reflect a deep yearning among supporters to cement Trump’s legacy as something enduring—something quite literally “set in stone.”
What Critics Are Saying
Not everyone is buying into the hype.
Many argue that Trump’s presidency was more divisive than transformative. While his supporters see border walls and tax reforms, his critics point to two impeachments, mounting national debt, and widespread civil unrest. Adding him to Mount Rushmore, they argue, would not only inflame political divisions but also dishonor the monument’s complex history.
And then there’s the legal angle. Even if the rock were suitable, and public opposition somehow silenced, the approval process would involve multiple agencies, environmental reviews, tribal consultations, and likely years of legal battles.
So no—Trump’s chiseled face isn’t appearing anytime soon. But the push to make it happen? That’s very real.
Final Thoughts
While it may sound outlandish on the surface, Rep. Andy Ogles' push to put Trump on Mount Rushmore is more than a political stunt—it's a reflection of the passion, polarization, and persistence that define this era of American politics.
Whether or not you agree with Ogles, the debate around who gets immortalized on America’s monuments isn’t going away. It forces the country to ask uncomfortable questions: Who do we honor? What values define us? And most importantly—who gets to decide?
So for now, the mountain stands as it is, stoic and unchanged. But the conversation? It’s erupting like wildfire—and not just in South Dakota.
Login