Park Service opposes Johnson’s Mount Rushmore Protection Act, calling it ‘unnecessary’

The National Park Service, which manages the preservation and upkeep of Mount Rushmore in the Black Hills, testified in opposition to South Dakota Rep. Dusty Johnson’s “Mount Rushmore Protection Act” on Thursday — not because the agency disagrees with the bill’s intent, but because the agency views the bill as “unnecessary.”

NPS Deputy Director for Congressional and External Relations Michael Reynolds testified in front of the House Committee on Natural Resources, adding that the bill’s language, which is meant to protect the national memorial from being altered, changed, destroyed or removed, could unintentionally threaten the agency’s ability to care for the memorial.

“We share the goals of what’s happening with the protection of Mount Rushmore in perpetuity,” Reynolds said.

If the bill does move forward through Congress, Reynolds said he’d prefer to collaborate on amendments with the Mount Rushmore State’s sole representative to change the wording of the bill — since maintenance requires removing vegetation or making small alterations to clean and maintain the carving throughout the year. But Johnson said that’s unnecessary, since preventing maintenance is not the intent of the bill.

“If we decide there is case law that complicates or calls into question some weakness of our statutory proposal, then we’re open to changing it,” Johnson said.

This is the third time Johnson has introduced the Mount Rushmore Protection Act. The bill would restrict the federal government from changing the name of the memorial (named after a New York City attorney who visited the Black Hills in 1884) or changing it in any way — whether by removing a president or adding a president to the memorial (which former President Donald Trump has discussed) — without approval from Congress.

Johnson cited a federal board’s decision in 2016 to change South Dakota’s tallest mountain and the highest point east of the Rockies from Harney Peak, after an army officer accused of massacring Native people, to Black Elk Peak, after an Oglala Lakota holy man.

Johnson said the decision did not adequately consider the input of South Dakotans, but in reality, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names did consider reams of testimony from South Dakotans before making its decision. That decision was cheered by some South Dakotans and criticized by others.

Johnson fears something similar could happen to Mount Rushmore, in part because of the presidents represented.

“These are imperfect men,” said Johnson, a Republican. “They’re not up on the monument because of their imperfections, they’re up on that monument because of their strengths, because of the values they brought to our country, the vision they had for how we can build a more perfect union — not perfect yet, but every day part of an endeavor to become more perfect.”

Some Native American organizations and tribal leaders in South Dakota have publicly called for the removal of Mount Rushmore in recent years, saying that the granite formation also known as Tunkasila Sakpe Paha in Lakota, or Six Grandfathers Mountain, is a spiritually important location and belongs to the tribes that make up the Great Sioux Nation, the Oceti Sakowin, under the broken Fort Laramie Treaty.

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream most recently called for the return of the Black Hills to the Lakota in an online post on the Fourth of July. 

State Sen. Helene Duhamel, R-Rapid City, testified in support of the bill.

She said although there has been criticism of the “tribute to democracy” because it’s on “stolen land,” the U.S. Supreme Court settled the dispute in its 1980 decision in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians. The court did not award any land back to the tribes but did make an award of $105 million. That money has grown exponentially with interest but has not been accepted by the tribal nations, which have since taken a position that accepting the money would threaten their continued push for the return of the land.

“Changing Mount Rushmore will not change our past,” Duhamel said.