Earn it First Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-25]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 20, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to prevent sitting presidents from self-aggrandizement by naming public facilities after themselves while still in power, promoting a standard of earning such honors posthumously or after leaving office.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits a sitting President, or any executive branch official acting on their behalf, from naming or designating any public facility after that President during their term in office. It broadly defines "public facility" to include federal buildings and facilities operated by entities receiving federal funds, ensuring the prohibition applies widely.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill upholds a tradition of humility and prevents potential abuses of power or conflicts of interest. They contend that honors like naming public buildings should be bestowed after a President's term, allowing for a more objective assessment of their legacy, rather than being initiated by the President themselves or their administration. This ensures such designations are genuine tributes rather than self-promotional acts.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill is unnecessary or overly restrictive, potentially limiting a President's ability to recognize their own achievements or initiatives through symbolic gestures. They might contend that a President, as the head of the executive branch, should have the discretion to make such designations, and that the public can judge the appropriateness of such actions through the electoral process. Some might also view it as a minor issue that distracts from more pressing legislative priorities.
The bill is exceptionally short and clear, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its full scope and implications quickly.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Naming Public Facilities After Sitting President
This section explicitly forbids the President, or any officer or employee of the executive branch acting on the President's behalf, from naming or designating any public facility after the sitting President. This prohibition applies for the entire duration of that President's term in office, ensuring that such honors are not self-initiated while in power.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision fosters a sense of public service over personal glorification, ensuring that honors are earned and bestowed by others rather than self-appointed. It maintains a dignified separation between a President's official duties and their personal legacy, allowing for historical perspective before such designations are made.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision is largely symbolic and addresses a problem that is not widespread or significant. They might contend that it unnecessarily limits the President's authority over executive branch operations and public recognition, potentially hindering morale or the ability to commemorate significant achievements during a term.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire for presidential humility and objective historical assessment against the potential for a President to commemorate their administration's achievements during their tenure. It prioritizes the former by delaying such honors until after a President leaves office.
Defines "public facility" to include not only buildings administered by a Federal agency (referencing 40 U.S.C. 3301 for "public building") but also "any building or facility operated by an entity that receives Federal funds."
Section 2(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms and referencing existing law, not necessarily evasive. However, its broad impact might be overlooked.
Case for: Supporters argue that including federally-funded facilities is essential to prevent circumvention of the bill's intent, ensuring the prohibition applies broadly to any public-facing infrastructure supported by taxpayer money, regardless of direct federal administration.
Case against: Critics might argue that extending the prohibition to entities merely receiving federal funds could be overly broad, potentially impacting local or private organizations that receive minimal federal support but are not truly "federal" facilities in the common understanding.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the universe of facilities covered by the naming prohibition beyond just directly owned and operated federal buildings.