Introduction of the no Fencing at Lafayette Square Act

Text in the Record

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the No Fencing at Lafayette Square Act, which would prohibit the installation of permanent fencing around Lafayette Square. This bill would help ensure that one of our nation's most important public spaces remains open and accessible to the public. According to press reports, the Trump administration plans to install permanent fencing around Lafayette Square, a federal park next to the White House. While I understand the importance of protecting the White House, which is already surrounded by a 13-foot-high fence, we can and must maintain our commitment to security without sacrificing public access by using the least restrictive means necessary to address security. Lafayette Square has long welcomed First Amendment demonstrations, vigils and public gatherings. It serves as a place where Americans can peacefully assemble within sight of the White House and engage directly in a democratic tradition. The openness of Lafayette Square and our democracy is our strength, not a security weakness that needs to be fenced off. Permanent fencing at Lafayette Square would send the wrong message to the nation and the world by continuing to transform our democracy from one that is accessible and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own citizens. Fencing is an incredibly imprecise security tool. It is more likely to keep out tourists, residents, students, and peaceful demonstrators than those determined to do harm. In many

[[Page E654]]

respects, it is another form of security theater, where it makes a place look secure while masking the need for more effective and modern security measures. Furthermore, Lafayette Square is in a mixed-use neighborhood. The park is used every day by D.C. residents and visitors from across the country and around the world. The distance between government and the people has grown, with trust in government at an all-time low. We should not increase that distance by placing intimidating barriers between public servants and the people they serve, especially when such barriers are not necessary. Security is not only about reducing risk. It is also about safeguarding the freedoms and values that anchor our country, not only for ourselves but for future generations. Public property should be open to the public. We should not leave citizens peering at their democracy from behind permanent fences. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Read it in the Congressional Record (opens in a new tab)