‘Cult or no?’: Adam Kinzinger asks MAGAs a simple question over a shocking proposal

Nothing says “definitely not a cult” quite like wanting to carve your leader’s face into the side of a mountain.

Former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger, one of the few conservatives who apparently still remembers what “conservative” used to mean, recently posed a deliciously simple question that cuts to the heart of the MAGA movement’s increasingly bizarre devotion to Donald Trump.

Actual real proposals by actual real Republicans. You decide: cult or no?https://t.co/67MGW2vbo3

— Adam Kinzinger (Slava Ukraini) 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@AdamKinzinger) April 4, 2025

Not content with simply dominating Twitter/X, Truth Social, and the Republican Party, Trump’s supporters now want his visage etched in stone alongside four of the greatest leaders in American history. And it’s not just MAGA fans on the internet throwing this idea around. This is an actual legislative proposal introduced by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.)

Perhaps most concerning is the response from newly appointed Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who has actual authority over national monuments. During an appearance on My View with Lara Trump, when asked whether Mount Rushmore could accommodate Trump’s face, Burgum replied with a straight face, “Well, they certainly have room for it there.”

Trump’s fascination with Mount Rushmore is nothing new. Back in 2020, he denied reports that he had asked about the possibility of adding his likeness to the monument, while simultaneously adding that it “sounded like a good idea” due to his supposed accomplishments “perhaps more than any other presidency.” And if you believe that, I’ve got some Trump University degrees to sell you.

Mount Rushmore itself stands as a testament to American achievement, ambition, and yes, sometimes uncomfortable history. Completed in 1941 after 14 years of work, the monument features the 60-foot-high faces of four presidents chosen for their roles in preserving, expanding, and unifying the nation: George Washington, who led the fight for independence and established precedents for the presidency; Thomas Jefferson, who expanded the nation through the Louisiana Purchase; Abraham Lincoln, who preserved the Union during the Civil War; and Theodore Roosevelt, who championed conservation and expanded American influence on the world stage.

The monument’s sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, intended the work to represent the first 150 years of American history. The faces weren’t chosen at random or as a popularity contest – they represented pivotal moments in the nation’s development. Washington’s leadership during the Revolutionary War, Jefferson’s vision for democracy, Lincoln’s preservation of the Union during its greatest existential threat, and Roosevelt’s modernization of America into a global power all marked fundamental turning points in our history. By contrast, what exactly would Trump’s addition represent? A presidency marked by two impeachments, a pandemic that killed over a million Americans, and an unprecedented attack on the peaceful transfer of power? The comparison makes a mockery of the monument’s original intent.

Let’s not forget that Mount Rushmore itself sits on contested ground. The Black Hills, where the monument is located, are sacred to the Lakota Sioux and other Indigenous tribes. The 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty guaranteed the Sioux ownership of the Black Hills, but after gold was discovered there, the U.S. government seized the land. In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians that the land had indeed been illegally taken. The irony of carving the face of a president who repeatedly mocked Native Americans (including his “Pocahontas” jibes at Senator Elizabeth Warren) onto their improperly seized sacred land would be almost too perfect a metaphor for American historical amnesia.

So back to Kinzinger’s question. When supporters want to literally carve their leader into a mountain traditionally reserved for presidents who guided the nation through its most pivotal historical moments – and when government officials appear willing to entertain such notions – it’s difficult to avoid the c-word.