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 any federal, state, foreign, or private funds to install permanent fencing around Lafayette Square, the public park directly north of the White House in Washington, DC. It would apply to all funding sources, not just federal appropriations. It would not prevent the repair or replacement of fencing that already exists at the time of enactment.
Who benefits
Members of the public who use Lafayette Square for recreation, tourism, or protest — including the estimated 3–5 million annual visitors to the area. Advocacy and civil liberties organizations that view the square as a historically significant public forum. Nearby businesses and tourism operators who benefit from open public access. Journalists and demonstrators who have historically used the space adjacent to the White House for newsgathering and protest activity.
Who is hurt
Executive branch security agencies (Secret Service, U.S. Park Police) that may view permanent fencing as a protective measure for the White House complex. White House staff and occupants who may prefer a physical security perimeter. Contractors who would otherwise be hired to design or install permanent fencing. Potentially, security planners who argue that flexible perimeter options are necessary for threat response.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Lafayette Square has served as a premier site for public protest and civic expression for over two centuries, and that permanent fencing would effectively convert a historic public forum into a restricted zone. They contend that temporary fencing erected in 2020 — which remained in place for months — demonstrated how "temporary" security measures can become de facto permanent barriers, and that this bill closes that loophole by targeting permanent installations specifically while preserving existing fencing rights.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Congress should not legislate specific security infrastructure decisions that are properly within the executive branch's authority to protect the White House and its occupants. They contend that permanently restricting the range of permissible security measures — regardless of the threat environment — could hamper the Secret Service's ability to respond to evolving risks, and that the bill's broad prohibition on private and foreign funds raises enforcement and definitional challenges that could create legal ambiguity.