HR-9598-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Eleanor Norton (D-DC)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the use of federal, state, foreign, or private funds to install permanent fencing around Lafayette Square, the federal park across from the White House. It would allow repair or replacement of fencing that already existed at the time of enactment, but would not permit new permanent fencing installations.
Who benefits
Members of the public, protesters, tourists, and D.C. residents who use Lafayette Square for demonstrations, gatherings, or recreation and who value open access to the park. Civil liberties and free-assembly advocacy groups that have historically opposed barriers restricting access to this site.
Who is hurt
The Secret Service, U.S. Park Police, and other federal security agencies that may want permanent fencing for perimeter security around the White House complex, who would need to rely on temporary fencing or other security measures instead. Federal officials responsible for White House security planning during future incidents of civil unrest.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Lafayette Square is a historic public space and a traditional site for political protest and free expression, and that permanent fencing would symbolically and physically restrict citizens' access to a location adjacent to the White House. They point to the 2020 fencing installation, which drew widespread criticism, as evidence that permanent barriers can chill public assembly and alter the character of a nationally significant public park.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that security decisions around the White House complex should be left to security professionals such as the Secret Service and Park Police rather than fixed by statute, since threat conditions can change and permanent infrastructure may sometimes be the most effective and cost-efficient security response. They contend that a blanket funding prohibition could tie the hands of security agencies during a future crisis when permanent fencing might be judged necessary to protect life and property.
Constitutional context
This bill involves Congress's Article I, Section 8 power over the seat of government and its spending power under Article I, Section 9, which lets Congress restrict how appropriated funds may be used; it does not directly regulate speech but touches the First Amendment interest in public assembly at a traditional public forum, an area addressed in cases like Perry Education Assn. v. PSEA (1983) on public forum doctrine.
Checks and balances
Congress would use its spending power to restrict how executive branch agencies (including the Secret Service and National Park Service) may use funds, limiting executive discretion over security infrastructure at this specific site.
Historical precedent
This bill responds to the June 2020 installation of tall perimeter fencing around Lafayette Square following protests, which prompted congressional and public debate over federal use of the park.