
Trump Could Use Sacred Native Land for a Monument to… Columbus
A provision buried deep in the House budget bill allocates $40 million toward President Donald Trump's plan for a vast garden of larger-than-life statues — and it could get built on sacred Native land.
The House version of the budget reconciliation bill passed last month contains funding for Trump's proposed National Garden of American Heroes, which would lionize figures ranging from Andrew Jackson to Harriet Tubman.
While the garden does not have an official location yet, one candidate is minutes from Mount Rushmore National Memorial, the iconic carvings of presidential faces in South Dakota's Black Hills. Trump first announced his plan for a national statue garden during a July 4, 2020, address at Mount Rushmore in response to the racial justice protesters toppling Confederate statues. 'I'm quite sure that Harriet Tubman would not be pleased.'
The potential statue garden site near Mount Rushmore belongs to an influential South Dakotan mining family that has offered to donate the land, an offer that has support from the state's governor.
The Black Hills, however, are sacred land to the region's Indigenous peoples, and its ownership following a U.S. treaty violation is contested. One Native activist decried the idea of building another monument in the mountain range.
'I'm quite sure,' said Taylor Gunhammer, an organizer with the NDN Collective and citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation, 'that Harriet Tubman would not be pleased that people trying to build the statue of her on stolen Lakota land have apparently learned nothing from her.'
Trump's vision has had a rocky road to realization. Trump's announcement was meant to offer his own competing vision to the activists who sought to remove statues — by force or by politics — of figures like Andrew Jackson or Confederate generals.
In one of the final acts of his first term, he issued a list of potential figures that alternately baffled, delighted or outraged observers. They included divisive — but inarguably historic — figures such as Jackson, who signed the Indian Removal Act that began the Trail of Tears. Also listed, however, were unexpected choices such as Canadian-born 'Jeopardy' host Alex Trebek, who was naturalized in 1998.
Some of the names never got American citizenship at all — including Christopher Columbus.
Joe Biden canceled the idea after taking the presidency, but Trump quickly revived it after his second inauguration.
The National Endowment for the Humanities was placed in charge of commissioning artists, who are required to craft 'classical' statues in marble, granite, bronze, copper, or brass and barred from abstract or modernist styles.
The statue-making process has drawn its own skeptics about whether Trump can fulfill a vision of having the garden ready by July 4, 2026, the nation's 250th birthday. The process of selecting a site and building Trump's vision of a 'vast outdoor park' in time could be just as daunting, however.
The Interior Department declined to comment on the site selection process, with a spokesperson saying that the garden was still in the 'planning and discussion phase.'
'We are judiciously implementing the President's Executive Order and will provide additional information as it becomes available,' spokesperson J. Elizabeth Peace said.
One of the few publicly known site candidates emerged in March, when Republican South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden issued a press release flagging the Black Hills as a potential location. In his announcement, he noted that the Lien family of Rapid City, South Dakota, had already offered land it owns near Mount Rushmore.
The Lien family, which has major interests in South Dakota mining projects, is also developing a theme park resort in Rapid City and a lodge nearby in the Black Hills. The family owns dozens of acres near the historic Doane Robinson tunnel, which offers motorists a framed view of Mount Rushmore.
The vision of another monument in the Black Hills, however, would place South Dakota politicians on a collision course with some Native tribal members who have long lamented the creation of Mount Rushmore.
The Lakota Sioux called the mountain the Six Grandfathers and ventured to it for prayer and devotion, according to National Geographic. The entire Black Hills were sacred ground for the Lakota and other tribes.
The Black Hills were promised to the Oceti Sakowin peoples as part of a Great Sioux Reservation in an 1868 treaty, but the U.S. government broke its promise when gold was discovered there. 'The fact that it was built in the Black Hills was not an accident or happenstance.'
The Oceti Sakowin Oyate, commonly known as the Sioux Nation, won a 1980 Supreme Court case finding that they had been wrongfully deprived of the land. They rejected the court's finding that they should receive monetary compensation and continued to seek return of the land. (Several tribes involved in the case did not respond to requests for comment about the proposed statue garden.)
Some Indigenous people in South Dakota see the carved faces on Mount Rushmore as a defacement of land that rightfully belongs to them.
'The fact that it was built in the Black Hills was not an accident or happenstance,' Gunhammer said. 'It is representative of the exact colonial presence that the settler colonial project has always been trying to have in the Black Hills.'
Mount Rushmore is a point of pride for other South Dakotans, as well as an economic boon. Sam Brannan, a Lien family member who supports the project, said she was hopeful that the White House would take them up on their offer to build another patriotic attraction nearby.
'We're just honored and hopeful that they will consider our site,' she said. 'The people they have selected are amazing. I hope everybody goes through those 250 names. They are very representative of the United States.'
The statue garden proposal comes at the same time as a family-owned company, Pete Lien and Sons, seeks to conduct exploratory drilling for graphite in the Black Hills near Pe' Sla, another sacred ceremonial site for the Lakota.
Gunhammer has been active in organizing tribal members against the proposed mining activity, which would happen on U.S. Forest Service land.
'The same company trying to build this national hero garden in order to preserve history is currently trying to undertake a project that destroys history for everyone,' he said.
'The same company trying to build this national hero garden in order to preserve history is currently trying to undertake a project that destroys history for everyone.'
Brannan referred questions about the mining project to Pete Lien and Sons, which did not respond to a request for comment sent through its website.
With regards to the national garden, Brannan said that Native tribes have not been consulted on the family's offer yet. 'Why would we? It's been privately held for 60 years,' she said.
Still, Brannan said the tribes could be consulted if the project advances. She said no one organization can claim to speak for all the Lakota people, and that her family maintains warm relations with Native leaders.
'We have been in mining for 80 years in the Black Hills, so we have been great neighbors to the Lakotans here,' she said, referring to one of the subgroups that makes up the Oceti Sakowin people.
In a statement, Josie Harms, the press secretary for the South Dakota governor, noted that the potential list of figures to be honored includes Native leaders such as Sitting Bull, the Lakota leader who defeated George Armstrong Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn.
'The tract of land in question is private property owned by Chuck Lien and his family,' said Harms, referring to the family patriarch who died in 2018. 'As a result, it will cause no disruption to either state or tribal land. As a federal project, the state will be a partner with the federal government as it seeks to comply with its regulations or consultation, as needed.'
The Trump administration has yet to detail how it will select the site for the statue garden, although numerous states and counties pitched the Interior Department five years ago.
Brannan said it was her understanding that more than 20 sites are being considered. Her family has not had direct contact with the Trump administration, she said.
One factor in the Black Hills site's favor is that the garden is gaining momentum at a high-water mark for the political influence of the twin Great Plains states of North and South Dakota.
Former South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who first championed the idea, is serving as Trump's Homeland Security secretary. South Dakota Sen. John Thune is the upper chamber's majority leader. Former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum is serving as the secretary of the Interior Department, the executive tapped with finding the location for the garden.
South Dakota's lone U.S. representative, Dusty Johnson — like Noem, Thune, and Burgum, a Republican — told The Intercept that the Black Hills have a strong shot. He has been pushing the idea with the Trump administration.
'I don't want to speak for the administration, other than I would tell you every conversation I have had with them, they understand the value of this particular parcel, and that they are going to give the Black Hills of South Dakota a full and complete look,' he said. 'We're going to have a real chance to win.'
The House's plan to spend tens of millions of dollars on the garden is laid out in the same reconciliation bill that would kick 11 million people off health insurance, according to a recent Congressional Budget Office estimate.
To make it into law, the spending provision would have to win Senate approval. Thune's office didn't respond to a request for comment.
The House bill does not specify whether the money should be spent on the site or the statues. Money from hundreds of National Endowment for the Humanities grants that the Trump administration canceled could be redirected to pay for the statues, the New York Times reported in April.
The National Endowment for the Humanities and National Endowment for the Arts have jointly committed $34 million for the project, including $30 million from this year's budget for the statues.
Some of the National Endowment for the Humanities grants that were canceled would have supported Native cultural projects in South Dakota.
The roster of grants killed includes $60,000 for an anthology of Lakota and Dakota literature in translation and $205,000 for an Oglala language archiving project, according to a list maintained by the Association for Computers and the Humanities.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Ted Cruz proposes withholding broadband funding from states that regulate AI
The Brief Senator Ted Cruz proposed that states attempting to regulate AI should lose federal broadband funding. This proposal is an addition to a House-passed bill aiming for a 10-year ban on state AI regulation. Critics argue Cruz's plan is "undemocratic and cruel," forcing states to choose between broadband access and AI consumer protection. WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed on Thursday an alternative punishment for planned legislation that would set a 10-year ban on state regulation of Artificial Intelligence model learning. Under Cruz's budget reconciliation proposal, an attempt to regulate AI would be prohibited from collecting federal funding provided by the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The Proposal The U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of House Resolution 1, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," on May 22. In part, the budget bill would ban state regulation on AI for 10 years. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Cruz authored a budget reconciliation that he says is intended to "fulfill President Trump's agenda." In a summary of the proposal, he refers to state regulation as "strangling AI deployment," comparing it to EU precautions against tech development. Cruz's proposal adds $500 million to the BEAD program, which has already administered $42.45 billion to the states in order to expand high-speed internet access across the country. It also prevents states from receiving any of that funding if they attempt to regulate AI. Dig deeper Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) has recently spoken out against HR 1, saying the anti-regulatory section alone will cost Congress her vote. Greene explained that she discovered the controversial provision, located on pages 278-279 of the bill, only after the House had already passed the legislation. Once the bill returns to the House following Senate deliberations, Greene says she will change sides based on the matter of AI. What they're saying Advocacy group Public Citizen released a commentary on Cruz's proposal, referring to it as a "display of corporate appeasement." In the article, J.B. Branch, a Big Tech accountability advocate, included the following statement: "This is a senatorial temper tantrum masquerading as policy. Americans have loudly rejected Senator Cruz's dangerous proposal to give tech giants a decade of immunity from state regulation. State legislatures, attorneys general, and citizens across all 50 states have demanded that Congress step away from overhauling consumer protections put in place in the absence of federal leadership. But instead of listening to the American people, Senate Republicans threw a fit and tied vital digital funding to corporate impunity. "With this move, Republicans are telling millions of Americans: 'You can have broadband but only if your state gives up the right to protect you from AI abuses.' It's undemocratic and cruel. Republicans would rather give Big Tech a 10-year hall pass to experiment on the American people unchecked, rather than give underserved rural and urban communities the ability to compete in the digital economy. Congress must reject this corporate giveaway and refocus their energy on representing the public interest." In her statements criticizing the anti-regulation portion of HR 1, Greene expressed concerns about developing rapidly evolving tech without checks and balances. "No one can predict what AI will be in one year, let alone 10," Greene said. "But I can tell you this: I'm pro-humanity, not pro-transhumanity. And I will be voting NO on any bill that strips states of their right to protect American jobs and families." What's next HR 1 is expected to continue undergoing changes in the Senate before returning to the House for another vote. Cruz's proposal has yet to be officially added to the legislation. The Source Information in this article comes from public U.S. Congress filings, Public Citizen, and previous FOX 4 coverage.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers
June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army celebrates its 250th birthday on June 14th in the nation's capital, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, and will be marked by a parade that may include tanks, rocket launchers and more than 100 military vehicles. With the two birthdays occurring on the same day, the previously scheduled parade that was intended as a relatively small event at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., has grown in size and cost. Up to 300 soldiers and civilians, the U.S. Army Band and four cannons were initially slated to honor the Army's 250th birthday, with seating available for 120 attendees, The Washington Post reported. U.S. Army leaders last year sought a permit for the event, but Trump's election victory has changed its scope, while doubling as an unofficial celebration of the president's birthday. Axios reported the parade will live up to Trump's request for a showcase the U.S. miliatary's might, with dozens of tanks, rocket launchers, missiles and more than 100 other military aircraft and vehicles participating. About 6,600 Army troops will participate, and the Army is paying to house them in area hotels. The parade route has been moved to the northwest portion of Constitution Avenue and will include a flyover of F-22 fighter jets, World War II planes and Vietnam-era aircraft. The event is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. EDT at 23rd Street and continue along Constitution Avenue N.W. to 15th Street. Trump will review the parade on the Ellipse. The event has an estimated cost of nearly $45 million, including more than $10 million for road repairs after the heavy military equipment passes over. The parade's estimated cost has Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., skeptical about its benefits. "I would have recommended against the parade," Wicker told an interviewer on Thursday, but the Department of Defense wants to use it as a recruiting tool. "On the other hand, [Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth] feels that it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for thousands of young Americans to see what a great opportunity it is to participate in a great military force," Wicker said. "So, we'll see."


New York Post
33 minutes ago
- New York Post
The ultimate loser of Trump and Musk's bloody battle royale could be the nation
Godzilla vs King Kong. Ali vs Frazier. Yankees vs. Red Sox. Trump vs. Musk is bigger than all of them because — unlike the first match — this one is real. And unlike the other two, it has real-world consequences. The future of the republic — not to mention the future of Tesla, SpaceX and Musk's other cutting-edge tech companies — could be at stake, depending on how bad it all gets. Of course, with this pair, they could make up while this column is at the printer. Musk is known to do 180s in business like most people breathe, and he seems open (at least for now) to rapprochement. That's why, after tanking during early rounds of the fight, Tesla shares spiked on Friday. Trump, meanwhile, can be forgiving when he sees an opportunity. Remember how he mocked 'Little Marco,' who after a MAGA-esque transformation is now Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Trump wanted to ban TikTok but as I was first to report, he's extending its life in the US. He came to believe that even if it is Chinese spyware, it helped him win a second term. But there's a better case that the Trump-Musk feud will linger. These men maintain some of the biggest egos on the planet; Musk actually thinks he's the reason Trump got elected since Elon owns X (formerly Twitter), which became a MAGA megaphone. If you know Trump like I do, someone taking credit for his success is a third rail. Plus, Musk isn't a natural convert to MAGA. These dudes bonded because Musk, a former Democrat, believed his party lost its mind on woke. His EV maker Tesla, a darling of the environmental movement, has a big operation in China, the main target of Trump's trade war. Musk called Peter Navarro, Trump's lead trade warrior, 'Peter Retarrdo' because Elon's no fan of tariffs. For his part, Trump is no budget hawk. It's telling that this fight started with Musk's critique that the president's 'big, beautiful bill' spends too much money. It quickly exposed other fissures lurking beneath the surface, according to my sources, and now it has gotten messy. No way to treat a pal Trump is teeing up killing all of Musk's lucrative government contracting after Musk outrageously — and foolishly — claimed the president is holding back the Jeffrey Epstein files because Trump's in the docs in some nefarious way. Not a way to treat a friend, particularly a powerful one. All of which gets me to laying odds on the winner if this feud keeps going. I say Trump is the heavy favorite. Musk has no political base, even if he splinters and begins spending his billions on Dems. Yes, some lefties are relishing the battle, but Musk will never be acceptable to most Democrats for the unforgivable sin of aiding Trump, then via DOGE cutting all that government lefty spending. Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet Sign up to receive On The Money by Charlie Gasparino in your inbox every Thursday. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Meanwhile, Musk poses little threat to MAGA. He's not a natural politician — he's not even comfortable in his own skin. He controls X and has a huge following, but Trump has his own following and social media platform that attracts as much media attention. And Trump can hit him where it hurts — his pocketbook. Musk is the world's richest man, but mostly on paper. It could diminish fast given how much of it is built on government work. Recall Musk smoking a joint on Joe Rogan, which is a no-no when you do defense contracting as SpaceX does. I reported how it sparked scrutiny by the feds that went nowhere. Maybe now it goes somewhere. Musk's accounting at Tesla has drawn regulatory attention in the past; it now might get some more. The company just had a lousy quarter as its lefty EV-buying base went somewhere else. Shares have recovered somewhat but remain under pressure. They fell as much as 16% when the feud went defcon. Trump could go after other parts of the Musk empire. The president could throttle SpaceX's government contracts, using the weed issue as an excuse to re-examine the relationship. Maybe more of those go by the wayside along with all his other government contracts. Musk is obviously miffed that Trump's tax bill didn't cut enough fat, but what might have really stoked his anger is that it did take aim at various green-tax credits that Tesla has feasted upon. Musk's recklessness in his attacks underscores one of his weaknesses as a CEO; he once said he had a buyer to take it private at a premium but no one emerged. And you wonder why the Epstein barb shouldn't be taken seriously. The smarter move Yes, Trump has a lot of levers to pull to get at what makes Musk so powerful. But here's why he shouldn't: For all of Musk's flaws, he's smart and has his finger on the pulse of the emerging economy. Tesla's tech is first-rate. SpaceX is transformational, and serves a significant national security function. Musk is rich and can continue to elect Republicans to keep Trump from being impeached and derailing what is really working in his second term, such as his war on woke, closing the border and, when this tariff stuff subsidies, tax cuts to grow the economy. And they did make beautiful music together exposing stuff with DOGE. Someone please call a timeout.