"🚨 POLITICAL BETRAYAL: THUNE BACKSTABS REPUBLICANS AND GIVES SCHUMER WHAT HE WANTED!"

WASHINGTON — Two bills aimed at restricting President Donald Trump’s plans for prominent Washington landmarks moved one procedural step closer to possible Senate floor action this week, creating fresh attention around Senate Majority Leader John Thune and his relationship with the White House just weeks before the November midterm elections.

The development has been described in some partisan coverage as Thune “fast-tracking” Democratic legislation or giving Democrats a political lifeline. The underlying Senate action is real, but that description requires an important qualification: the two bills were placed into the Senate’s Rule XIV process, which can bypass committee referral and put legislation directly on the Legislative Calendar. It does not mean Thune has endorsed the bills, scheduled final debate or guaranteed a vote.

The measures are S.5602, a bill seeking to prohibit federal funds from being used to plan or construct a structure or monument at Memorial Circle in the Columbia Island/Lady Bird Johnson Park area, and S.5603, a bill that would prohibit the demolition of congressionally designated presidential memorials without congressional authorization.

Both bills were introduced by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., not by Senate Democrats generally and not by Sen. Angus King as the principal sponsor. The Senate Democratic Caucus’s official September 29 floor wrap-up recorded that the chamber had begun the Rule XIV process for both measures.

That distinction corrects one of the main errors in the original account. King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, is a co-sponsor of the anti-arch legislation. He is not the bill’s primary author. Merkley’s office lists King, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland as co-sponsors of the measure.

The first measure, the Protecting Presidential Memorials Act, is also led by Merkley. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined him in the Senate effort, making the proposal bipartisan. Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, Chris Van Hollen and Jack Reed are additional co-sponsors.

The legislation would prohibit the demolition of any memorial honoring a U.S. president that Congress has formally designated unless Congress passes a law authorizing that demolition. Supporters have emphasized the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, but the bill is drafted more broadly and could apply to other congressionally designated presidential memorials.

The Kennedy Center has become a major point of conflict during Trump’s second term. The center’s Trump-appointed board attempted to add Trump’s name to the building, but a federal court ruled that Congress controls the official name. The board later voted on another signage plan, while litigation continued.

The dispute escalated again in September when Trump declined to rule out the possibility that the Kennedy Center could eventually be torn down. On September 17, a federal judge ordered the administration to provide at least 30 days’ notice before taking any step toward demolition.

That legal and political backdrop explains why Merkley and Murkowski sought a statutory safeguard. On September 28, Merkley tried to pass the memorial-protection bill immediately by unanimous consent. Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah objected, blocking that expedited route.

An objection to unanimous consent does not permanently kill a bill. It simply means the Senate cannot approve the measure through that shortcut. The legislation can still move through another procedural path — which is where Rule XIV became relevant.

Rule XIV is a Senate procedure that allows a senator to bypass the ordinary committee-referral process and place a bill directly on the Legislative Calendar after the required readings on separate legislative days. The Senate Republican Policy Committee’s glossary explains that any senator can initiate the procedure, although bringing a calendar item to the floor remains largely under the majority leader’s control.

That means describing the maneuver as “fast-tracking” is defensible only in a narrow procedural sense: the bills are being moved around the committee process and into a position where the full Senate could consider them. It does not mean that they have been advanced through a committee, approved by Republicans or scheduled for a roll-call vote.

This is especially important when assessing Thune’s role. As majority leader, Thune has significant control over Senate floor scheduling, and Senate leadership routinely uses Rule XIV for bills from either party when it wants to preserve the option of future floor action. Placing a bill on the calendar is therefore not the same thing as announcing support for its substance.

The second bill, S.5602, targets Trump’s proposed monumental arch near Arlington Memorial Bridge and Arlington National Cemetery. The project has been described as a 250-foot triumphal arch planned for the Memorial Circle area, one of the most historically sensitive landscapes in the capital.

Merkley’s bill would prohibit federal money from being used for the planning or construction of any structure or monument at that site. His office says the bill is intended to stop federal taxpayer dollars from financing what he calls the Trump Arch.

The arch project is already the subject of litigation. Veterans, historic-preservation advocates and other plaintiffs have argued that the administration lacks legal authority to construct the monument without explicit congressional approval under federal laws governing commemorative works and historic sites.

The administration has disputed that interpretation. Government lawyers have argued that earlier congressional authority associated with the Arlington Memorial Bridge project provides a legal basis for the work, while opponents contend that the decades-old authorization cannot reasonably be read as approval for a new 250-foot monument.

A federal judge has also imposed restrictions while the litigation proceeds. The court has required the government to provide notice before undertaking activity that could amount to construction at the proposed site, although limited archaeological testing has been permitted under specified conditions.

The disagreement is not limited to whether the arch should exist. It also concerns who has the authority to approve it and who should pay for it. During House appropriations proceedings earlier this year, lawmakers debated an amendment seeking to bar federal money from being used on the project.

Republican appropriators argued at the time that their spending bill did not contain a direct appropriation for the arch. Democratic lawmakers responded that the administration had previously shifted money from other federal programs toward related work and that an explicit prohibition was therefore necessary.

Merkley brought his anti-funding legislation to the Senate floor on September 28 and sought quick passage. Senate Republicans blocked that unanimous-consent attempt. The following day, however, the Senate began the Rule XIV process for both the anti-arch bill and the presidential-memorial bill.

That sequence is crucial because it undercuts the claim that Senate Republican leadership simply sided with Democrats on the merits. Republicans had just blocked immediate passage of the measures. The Rule XIV action preserved a possible route for later consideration without changing the fact that there remains substantial Republican opposition.

The two measures received their bill numbers in the 119th Congress as S.5602 and S.5603. GovInfo’s Congressional Record Index identifies S.5602 as the No Funds for Trump’s Illegal Arch Act, while S.5603 is the bill prohibiting demolition of presidential memorials.

The politics are sensitive because the midterm elections are now roughly a month away. Trump has repeatedly criticized Senate Republicans when they resist or slow his priorities, while Thune has also drawn attention for occasionally distancing himself from certain administration actions, including the use of taxpayer-funded advertisements featuring the president.

But there is no verified evidence that Republicans as a group were “infuriated” by the Rule XIV action, nor does the procedural record establish that Thune was attempting to rescue Democrats politically. Those descriptions are political interpretations rather than facts demonstrated by the Senate record.

There is also no guarantee that either bill will receive a vote before Election Day. Once a bill sits on the Legislative Calendar, it is eligible for floor consideration, but the Senate has hundreds of calendar items and limited floor time. The majority leader generally decides which measures are brought up and when.