Congress Bill Spotlight: National Garden of American Heroes, As Trump Proposed – The Fulcrum

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.
What do Kobe Bryant, Dr. Seuss, Walt Disney, Alex Trebek, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have in common?
What the bill does
The National Garden for America's 250th Anniversary Act would create a public park depicting 250 sculptures of notable historic Americans. The park would open in July 2026, tied to the “semiquincentennial” 250th anniversary of July 1776’s Declaration of Independence signing.
Who would be depicted in this park? While President Donald Trump’s executive order, which inspired it, contains a list of 250 proposed people, the actual legislative text contains no such names. Vince Haley, chair of Trump’s Domestic Policy Council, would be tasked with finalizing the selections.
Where would it be located? Again, the legislative text doesn’t say, stating that the decision is up to the Interior Secretary. While most “national” landmarks are in the nation’s capital of Washington, D.C., South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden (R) proposes locating it near Mount Rushmore in his state.
The congressional bill was introduced by Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL21).
Context
In the summer of 2020, amid a nationwide reckoning on race relations, statues of Confederate generals and other controversial figures with fraught histories on race were torn down around the country. Trump opposed these changes, calling them attempts to “erase our history.”
So that July, against this tumult, he issued an executive order creating a “National Garden of American Heroes.” A subsequent executive order in January 2021, on the third-to-last day of his term, proposed 250 Americans who could be depicted.
Most are some combination of “the usual suspects” like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, plus favorites of the modern right like conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and televangelist pastor Billy Graham.
However, at least a few names might be surprising, like liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The list also includes abolitionist Harriet Tubman, even though Trump opposed putting Tubman’s face on the $20 bill, calling it “pure political correctness.” (President Andrew Jackson, the bill’s current face for now, is also one of the 250 proposed statues.)
A few proposed names are less historical and political but instead more recent and entertaining, such as Jeopardy host Alex Trebek and basketball legend Kobe Bryant.

President Joe Biden revoked Trump’s executive order creating the statue garden in May 2021, only for Trump to reinstate it in January 2025.
Who could be included?
The 250 final statues wouldn’t necessarily match the 250 proposed statues from Trump’s executive order. Still, they provide a rough guide, an assortment of notable Americans from all walks of life.

Here are a few particularly notable names each from various different categories:
Plus a few notable names that don’t neatly fit into any of the above categories: Benjamin Franklin, Betsy Ross, Norman Rockwell, Helen Keller, Annie Oakley, Paul Revere.
What supporters say
Supporters argue the sculpture garden will serve much the same role as other iconic landmarks depicting notable Americans like the Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, and Mount Rushmore.
“The National Garden will be a beautiful site to honor our history and recognize prominent American founders and generations of trailblazers,” Rep. Mast said in a press release. “America’s past and present is filled with heroes from all walks of life and this new garden will soon be open to the public to forever remember their contributions.”
Rep. Mast’s website also includes a survey where the public can nominate anybody for a statue. The poll also includes six specific names to upvote, four of whom are on the original proposed list: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Babe Ruth. Two others are not: Trump himself and singer Kid Rock. (Both are still alive; all of the original 250 names are deceased.)
What opponents say
Opponents counter that the sculpture garden would be sycophantic propaganda at a time when the administration is slashing money for more so-called “authentic” arts.
“For 60 years, the [National Endowment for the Humanities] has enhanced education at all levels — K-12, higher ed, and community-based — by supporting a thoughtful and critical engagement with history, art, and culture,” Northwestern University Art History Professor Rebecca Zorach wrote in a Chicago Tribune opinion column. “Diverting NEH funding toward the commissioning of top-down, politically prescribed ‘art’ is an affront to the vital work the NEH has historically done.”
Opponents may also counter that this basic idea functionally already exists, in the form of the National Statuary Hall. Each of the 50 states selects two notable figures for statues representing their home states, totaling 100 statues displayed at the U.S. Capitol Building.
However, each individual legislature selects their own state’s statues, while Trump’s idea would select them at the federal level instead. At least while Trump or a Republican is president, this would make it less likely that certain statues would be taken down, like Virginia’s 2020 vote to remove Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee while Trump was president.
Odds of passage
The bill has attracted two cosponsors, both Republicans: Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY17) and Barry Moore (R-AL1).
It awaits a potential vote in the House Natural Resources 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: Preventing Presidential Inaugurations on MLK Day, Like Trump’s
Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: Suspending Pennies and Nickels for 10 Years
Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump’s Birthday and Flag Day Holiday Establishment Act
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.
What do Kobe Bryant, Dr. Seuss, Walt Disney, Alex Trebek, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have in common?
What the bill does
The National Garden for America's 250th Anniversary Act would create a public park depicting 250 sculptures of notable historic Americans. The park would open in July 2026, tied to the “semiquincentennial” 250th anniversary of July 1776’s Declaration of Independence signing.
Who would be depicted in this park? While President Donald Trump’s executive order, which inspired it, contains a list of 250 proposed people, the actual legislative text contains no such names. Vince Haley, chair of Trump’s Domestic Policy Council, would be tasked with finalizing the selections.
Where would it be located? Again, the legislative text doesn’t say, stating that the decision is up to the Interior Secretary. While most “national” landmarks are in the nation’s capital of Washington, D.C., South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden (R) proposes locating it near Mount Rushmore in his state.
The congressional bill was introduced by Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL21).
Context
In the summer of 2020, amid a nationwide reckoning on race relations, statues of Confederate generals and other controversial figures with fraught histories on race were torn down around the country. Trump opposed these changes, calling them attempts to “erase our history.”
So that July, against this tumult, he issued an executive order creating a “National Garden of American Heroes.” A subsequent executive order in January 2021, on the third-to-last day of his term, proposed 250 Americans who could be depicted.
Most are some combination of “the usual suspects” like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, plus favorites of the modern right like conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and televangelist pastor Billy Graham.
However, at least a few names might be surprising, like liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The list also includes abolitionist Harriet Tubman, even though Trump opposed putting Tubman’s face on the $20 bill, calling it “pure political correctness.” (President Andrew Jackson, the bill’s current face for now, is also one of the 250 proposed statues.)
A few proposed names are less historical and political but instead more recent and entertaining, such as Jeopardy host Alex Trebek and basketball legend Kobe Bryant.

President Joe Biden revoked Trump’s executive order creating the statue garden in May 2021, only for Trump to reinstate it in January 2025.
Who could be included?
The 250 final statues wouldn’t necessarily match the 250 proposed statues from Trump’s executive order. Still, they provide a rough guide, an assortment of notable Americans from all walks of life.

Here are a few particularly notable names each from various different categories:
Plus a few notable names that don’t neatly fit into any of the above categories: Benjamin Franklin, Betsy Ross, Norman Rockwell, Helen Keller, Annie Oakley, Paul Revere.
What supporters say
Supporters argue the sculpture garden will serve much the same role as other iconic landmarks depicting notable Americans like the Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, and Mount Rushmore.
“The National Garden will be a beautiful site to honor our history and recognize prominent American founders and generations of trailblazers,” Rep. Mast said in a press release. “America’s past and present is filled with heroes from all walks of life and this new garden will soon be open to the public to forever remember their contributions.”
Rep. Mast’s website also includes a survey where the public can nominate anybody for a statue. The poll also includes six specific names to upvote, four of whom are on the original proposed list: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Babe Ruth. Two others are not: Trump himself and singer Kid Rock. (Both are still alive; all of the original 250 names are deceased.)
What opponents say
Opponents counter that the sculpture garden would be sycophantic propaganda at a time when the administration is slashing money for more so-called “authentic” arts.
“For 60 years, the [National Endowment for the Humanities] has enhanced education at all levels — K-12, higher ed, and community-based — by supporting a thoughtful and critical engagement with history, art, and culture,” Northwestern University Art History Professor Rebecca Zorach wrote in a Chicago Tribune opinion column. “Diverting NEH funding toward the commissioning of top-down, politically prescribed ‘art’ is an affront to the vital work the NEH has historically done.”
Opponents may also counter that this basic idea functionally already exists, in the form of the National Statuary Hall. Each of the 50 states selects two notable figures for statues representing their home states, totaling 100 statues displayed at the U.S. Capitol Building.
However, each individual legislature selects their own state’s statues, while Trump’s idea would select them at the federal level instead. At least while Trump or a Republican is president, this would make it less likely that certain statues would be taken down, like Virginia’s 2020 vote to remove Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee while Trump was president.
Odds of passage
The bill has attracted two cosponsors, both Republicans: Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY17) and Barry Moore (R-AL1).
It awaits a potential vote in the House Natural Resources 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: Preventing Presidential Inaugurations on MLK Day, Like Trump’s
Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: Suspending Pennies and Nickels for 10 Years
Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump’s Birthday and Flag Day Holiday Establishment Act
Protesters confront National Guard soldiers and police outside of a federal building as protests continue in Los Angeles following three days of clashes with police after a series of immigration raids on June 09, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.
LOS ANGELES, CA – An estimated 700 U.S. Marines are being mobilized from the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, approximately 140 miles east of Los Angeles, to Camp Pendleton in San Diego County. This mobilization will position the troops closer to Los Angeles, where they may potentially work alongside National Guard units to protect federal resources and personnel, according to NBC News.
The latest figures from police, nearly 70 individuals were arrested over the weekend during protests. This total includes 29 people arrested on Saturday for failure to disperse and 21 individuals arrested on Sunday on charges ranging from attempted murder involving a Molotov cocktail to looting and failure to disperse, as reported by the LAPD.
President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday: “Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!”
In response to the Marines' deployment, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell expressed concerns, stating that the "arrival of federal military forces in Los Angeles — absent clear coordination — presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us charged with safeguarding this city."
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who opposed Trump sending the state's National Guard, strongly criticized Trump's activation of Marines in the Los Angeles area. In a post on X, he says that Marines are "heroes" who "shouldn't be deployed on American soil facing their own countrymen to fulfill the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial president. This is un-American."
Gavin also posted that he was informed "Trump is deploying another 2,000 Guard troops to L.A."
Increasing tensions, California sued the Trump administration on Monday over its order to deploy National Guard troops without the governor’s consent. The lawsuit argues that the President overstepped his authority when he called up the National Guard in defiance of Newsom, invoking a law that allows the president to do so under specific conditions.
So, when can a president deploy the National Guard? Here is the answer and more in a recent edition of the Fulcrum series, Just the Facts:

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network and an accredited Solutions Journalism and Complicating the Narratives trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal in California, makes up about 40% of revenue for Community Health Centers, which serve almost 32 million mostly low-income people nationwide.
People who depend on Community Health Centers and rural hospitals could have trouble finding care if Medicaid cuts just approved by the U.S. House are signed into law.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated 8 million people nationwide could lose coverage over the next decade, including more than 3 million in California.

Lizette Escobedo, vice president of government relations and civic engagement at AltaMed Health Services in Los Angeles, said the costs to treat a flood of uninsured patients would overwhelm community clinics and small town hospitals.

"If this bill were to be implemented over the next 10 years, some federally qualified health centers and hospitals especially in the rural areas would probably have to close their doors," Escobedo projected.

Supporters of the bill said the savings are needed to fund other administration priorities, including President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts. The bill would also tighten work requirements for Medicaid coverage and force people to reapply every six months instead of annually. And it would slash tens of billions in federal funding to states like California allowing health coverage for undocumented people.

Joe Dunn, chief policy officer for the National Association of Community Health Centers, called the proposed cuts counterproductive, in terms of keeping people healthy and keeping costs down.

"Health centers actually save money in the long run, because it reduces utilization of emergency departments and other kind of higher-cost settings, like inpatient hospitalization," Dunn explained.

The bill is now in the U.S. Senate.
GOP Funding Bill Could Put CA Rural Health Centers, Hospitals at Risk was originally published by the Public News Service and is republished with permission.
Suzanne Potter is a journalist with 30 years of experience as a reporter for TV, radio and print news.

Unrecognizable person clinging to a fence deprived of freedom
It's a peculiar feeling to see the United States, a nation built on the bones of the oppressed, suddenly rebrand itself as a sanctuary for the persecuted as long as those seeking refuge are white. The current executive branch of the American government has managed to weaponize the language of human rights for its own geopolitical and racial ends— that is, selective, self-serving, misguided, and immoral.
The Trump administration is sullying the name of America, with barely a fig leaf of evidence, by trumpeting allegations of "genocide" against white South Africans. The chorus rises from right-wing newsrooms to the halls of Congress, fueled by viral videos and the breathless retelling of farm attacks, stripped of historical context or statistical rigor. White South Africans are an endangered species, so told, and America must fling open its doors, granting not just asylum but a fast track to citizenship—no questions asked.
Contrast this with the labyrinth of cruelty that greets Black and brown asylum seekers from Haiti, Central America, the Middle East, or sub-Saharan Africa. For them, there are cages, deportations, and endless bureaucratic purgatory. For white South Africans, there is welcome. There is sympathy. There is an open hand.
I've seen South Africa—its pain, promise, unfinished struggle—up close. In my Fulcrum article, I wrote about my post-apartheid travels, the complicated dance of reconciliation, and the everyday heroism of ordinary South Africans, Black and white, who have refused to let the wounds of history fester into new cycles of vengeance. My cross-cultural work and conversations with survivors, clergy, activists, and families across townships and suburbs all tell a story far more nuanced than the caricature circulating in Washington.
Yes, South Africa is a country haunted by violence. Due chiefly to its legacy of apartheid, centuries of land theft, and economic exclusion. But why, then, does this administration fixate on South Africa? Why the sudden urge to play the benevolent savior to white refugees while ramping up barriers against everyone else? We all know the answer. In America, whiteness still confers an almost magical power to transform suffering—real or imagined—into moral urgency.
By elevating the plight of white South Africans, the administration feeds the anxieties of its base, stokes the flames of racial resentment, and distracts from its failure to confront domestic racism. The narrative of "white genocide" conveniently erases the ongoing economic and social violence faced by Black South Africans while allowing American politicians to posture as champions of human rights. However, there is a cost for selective morality.

A moral democracy assumes every person, regardless of race or origin, should have the right to seek refuge from violence and persecution. Yet the present federal approach is not about principle; it is about power. The Trump administration's policy is not grounded in a careful assessment of need or risk; it is animated by an old and ugly logic, one that privileges whiteness and treats Black and brown lives as disposable.
I've visited with South Africans—white, Black, and "colored"—whose lives have been touched by violence. I've visited the inner cities and the rural and affluent communities where fear and hardship are a daily reality. But I've also seen the tenacity of reconciliation, the struggle for justice, the messy, unfinished work of building a nation out of the ashes of apartheid. Truthfully, it is not up to Americans—least of all American politicians who have less than informed working knowledge of cultural life in Johannesburg, Soweto, Hoedspruit, Pretoria, or Cape Town—to define or distort the reality of contemporary South Africa. And it is certainly not the role of the U.S. government to selectively amplify one group's suffering while erasing or minimizing the suffering of others.
There exists a reality behind the rhetoric. Credible researchers—including the South African Human Rights Commission and independent international observers—have found no evidence of a government campaign to exterminate white South Africans. Farm murders, tragic as they are, represent a fraction of the country's overall violent crime, which overwhelmingly affects Black South Africans. Nevertheless, the Trump
administration has ignored these findings, preferring the sensationalism of viral hoaxes and the lobbying of far-right interest groups. It's no coincidence that the loudest voices calling for white South African asylum are the same ones who championed the Muslim ban or who cheered on the mass deportation of Haitian refugees last year.
A call of conscience is before our nation. Together, we must challenge this nation's leaders and all those who enable its policies to answer for this betrayal of our deepest ethical commitments. America cannot claim to champion global human rights while practicing racial triage at its borders. We cannot claim to have moved beyond our apartheid-like practices while importing its logic into our laws.
Moreover, if we are serious about justice, we must extend the same dignity and protection to all who seek refuge—not just those whose suffering flatters our prejudices. We must listen to the people of South Africa, in all their diversity, and resist the temptation to reduce their reality to propaganda.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
What is the current status?
Recently, both countries agreed to temporarily reduce tariffs for 90 days, lowering reciprocal tariff rates to 10%. However, the U.S. still maintains a 30% baseline tariff on Chinese goods, while China has removed some non-tariff countermeasures
On Monday, May 12, 2025, the White House and China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) released a joint statement in which they committed to lowering reciprocal tariff rates from 125 percent to just 10 percent for a period of 90 days. The existing 20 percent tariff on Chinese goods remains in place, meaning the final tariff rate on Chinese goods will be 30 percent. This tariff is levied in addition to the most-favored-nation tariff, as well as other existing tariffs on China, such as the Section 301 tariffs. However, they are not stacked on top of the sector-specific Section 232 tariffs on products such as steel, aluminum, and auto parts.
What percent of total China exports are to the United States
China's exports to the United States accounted for 15% of its total exports in 2023. This amounted to approximately $501 billion out of China's global exports of $3.4 trillion. Despite ongoing trade tensions, the U.S. remains China's largest single-country export market. In 2021, exports to the U.S. accounted for 17% of China's total exports, whereas in 2023, this dropped to 15%. The decline is largely due to ongoing trade tensions, supply chain shifts, and efforts by both countries to diversify their trade partnerships.
How does a decline in exports to the U.S. affect China's economy overall?
China's economy has been impacted by the decline in exports to the United States, but it has shown resilience by diversifying its trade partnerships and boosting domestic investment. The reduction in exports to the U.S. has contributed to a slower GDP growth rate, with estimates suggesting a 1.2 percentage point decline in growth due to the ongoing tariff war. However, China has responded with economic stimulus measures, which are expected to add 0.5 percentage points to growth, bringing the projected rate to around 4.5% for 2025.

Despite pressure from U.S. tariffs, China has maintained strong export growth to other markets, such as the EU and ASEAN, which helps offset losses. Additionally, China has been focusing on high-tech manufacturing and equipment investment, which has helped sustain economic momentum.
Overall, while the decline in U.S. exports has created challenges, China’s economy remains adaptable, leveraging alternative trade routes and domestic policies to mitigate the impact.
If China were to completely cut off imports of American products, it would have significant consequences for the U.S. economy, particularly in industries that rely heavily on Chinese demand. The most impacted sectors would likely be:
Beyond specific industries, a full trade cutoff could slow U.S. economic growth, increase unemployment in affected sectors, and force companies to find alternative markets. However, some industries may adapt by shifting their exports to other countries, although this would take time and likely result in financial losses in the short term. The broader impact would depend on whether China imposes gradual restrictions or an immediate halt.
Which economy would be hurt more if all imports and exports were cut off between the US and China?
A complete cutoff of trade between the U.S. and China would have severe consequences for both economies, but the impact would differ based on their economic structures and dependencies.
Impact on the U.S.:
Impact on China:
Who Would Be Hurt More?
China would likely suffer greater economic damage due to its higher dependence on exports and foreign investment. The U.S. would experience inflation and supply chain disruptions, but it has a more diversified economy and could recover faster. However, both nations would face long-term consequences, including job losses, slower growth, and global economic instability.
Who has more leverage politically- Trump or Xi Jinping?
Both Donald Trump and Xi Jinping hold significant political leverage, but in different ways.
Trump's Leverage:
Xi's Leverage:
Who Has More Leverage?
Trump is eager to reset trade talks, but Xi appears to be holding firm, making negotiations difficult. While Trump has economic tools at his disposal, Xi’s long-term strategy and control over key resources give him strong leverage. The outcome will depend on how each leader plays their cards in the coming weeks.
Who is a better negotiator – Xi or Trump, and what past negotiations might offer insights?
Xi is known for long-term strategic patience, while Trump relies on high-pressure tactics. Trump himself has admitted that Xi is “extremely hard to make a deal with”, suggesting that Xi’s approach may be more effective in maintaining control over negotiations. However, Trump’s unpredictability can force quick decisions, making him a formidable negotiator in fast-moving situations.
Phase One Trade Deal (2020)
Geneva Trade Truce (2025)
Challenges in Reaching a New Deal

source