S-3622-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Sponsored by Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
What it does
This bill would prohibit any federal building, land, or other federal asset from being named, renamed, designated, or redesignated after a sitting President. It would also bar the use of federal funds for any such naming. Any federal property already named after the sitting President as of the bill's enactment would be required to revert to its previously established name under federal law.
Who benefits
The general public, to the extent the bill is intended to preserve a norm of separating the presidency from the naming of public assets. Future Presidents who would be protected from the appearance of self-promotion. Federal workers and agencies that would have clear statutory guidance on naming decisions. Taxpayers who would not bear costs associated with renaming federal assets after a sitting President.
Who is hurt
The sitting President at the time of enactment, whose name would be removed from any already-renamed federal property. Future Presidents who might otherwise have federal assets named in their honor during their tenure. Federal agencies that may face administrative costs to revert signage, records, and official designations for any property renamed prior to enactment. Contractors and vendors involved in signage or branding who would lose potential work.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that naming federal property after a sitting President blurs the line between the office and the individual, undermining public trust in neutral government institutions. They contend that the longstanding tradition of posthumous or post-service naming honors exists precisely to prevent the appearance of self-aggrandizement, and that using federal assets — funded by all taxpayers — to promote a sitting officeholder sets a troubling precedent for the use of public resources.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill is a procedural restriction that targets a specific President rather than addressing a systemic governance problem, given that no prior President has renamed federal assets after themselves while in office. They contend that Congress already holds the power to approve or reject such naming decisions through the appropriations and legislative process, making a new statutory prohibition redundant and potentially motivated by partisan rather than institutional concerns.