A recent provision in the House budget bill has sparked significant controversy by allocating $40 million for President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to create a National Garden of American Heroes. This proposed garden aims to celebrate a diverse array of historical figures, from Andrew Jackson to Harriet Tubman, but the potential site for this project raises critical concerns, particularly regarding its location on sacred Native American land.
The House version of the budget reconciliation bill, which passed last month, includes funding for this statue garden, although an official location has yet to be confirmed. One candidate site is situated just minutes from the iconic Mount Rushmore National Memorial in South Dakota’s Black Hills, a region that holds deep cultural and spiritual significance for Indigenous peoples. Trump first unveiled his vision for the garden during a July 4, 2020, speech at Mount Rushmore, positioning it as a counter-narrative to the activists who have sought to remove statues of controversial figures in the wake of racial justice protests.
The potential site near Mount Rushmore is owned by the Lien family, a prominent mining family in South Dakota, who have expressed their willingness to donate the land for this project. South Dakota’s governor has shown support for this initiative, further complicating the matter. However, Native activists have voiced strong opposition, arguing that constructing a monument on land that was taken from Indigenous peoples is deeply disrespectful. Taylor Gunhammer, an organizer with the NDN Collective and a member of the Oglala Lakota Nation, articulated this sentiment, stating, “I’m quite sure 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.”
The Black Hills, known as Paha Sapa to the Lakota Sioux, are not only a site of natural beauty but also a sacred landscape. The U.S. government violated treaties that promised these lands to the Oceti Sakowin peoples, and the area has long been a focal point of Indigenous resistance and cultural heritage. The Lakota have consistently sought the return of these lands, rejecting monetary compensation in favor of reclaiming their rightful territory. As Gunhammer pointed out, the presence of Mount Rushmore itself is seen by many Indigenous people as a defacement of their sacred land, a stark reminder of colonial oppression.
The proposed statue garden has faced skepticism regarding its feasibility and timeline. The Trump administration aims to have the garden ready by July 4, 2026, coinciding with the nation’s 250th anniversary. However, the logistics of selecting a site and commissioning the statues pose significant challenges. The National Endowment for the Humanities has been tasked with overseeing the project, which requires that the statues be crafted in classical styles, excluding modernist interpretations.
The implications of this project extend beyond cultural symbolism. The same budget bill that allocates funds for the statue garden also threatens to cut health insurance for approximately 11 million people, raising ethical questions about prioritizing monuments over essential social services. Additionally, funding for Native cultural projects has been redirected to support the statue garden, including grants for translating Lakota and Dakota literature and archiving Oglala language resources.
As the debate continues, the voices of Indigenous activists remain crucial in advocating for their rights and heritage. Gunhammer’s assertion that the statue garden represents a continuation of colonial narratives resonates with many who view the project as an affront to their history and identity. The juxtaposition of honoring historical figures while simultaneously disregarding the sacredness of the land they occupy raises profound questions about the values we choose to celebrate as a nation.
In a broader context, this situation reflects ongoing tensions in the United States regarding the recognition and respect for Indigenous rights and lands. As discussions about monuments and historical representation evolve, it is essential to consider the perspectives of those whose histories have been marginalized. The National Garden of American Heroes could serve as an opportunity for reconciliation and understanding, but only if it is approached with sensitivity to the land’s historical significance and the voices of its original stewards.
As this story develops, it will be essential to monitor how the administration navigates these complex issues and whether it will engage meaningfully with Indigenous communities in the decision-making process. The outcome of this project could have lasting implications for both cultural heritage and the ongoing struggle for Indigenous rights in America.