The Future of the People’s House

Image courtesy of Joe Raedle/Getty Images

By Margaret Adams

Since Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy announced that Capitol police would erect fencing around the Capitol Building following the riot that took place at the Capitol, the Acting U.S. Capitol Police Chief has announced a proposal to make this protection a permanent change. 

The riot, which took place on January 6, was caused by Trump-supporters in order to protest Congress certifying Joe Biden as President. Many protestors, turned rioters, infiltrated the Capitol Building and wreaked havoc by vandalizing and stealing property. About 300 people have been arrested for their roles in the riot as of last Friday, according to the U.S. attorney for District of Columbia, Michael Sherwin. 

As a result, temporary fencing and back-up forces were put in place for a minimum of 30 days. The “non-scalable” fencing is 8 ft. tall and was placed around the Capitol Building Constitution Ave. to Independence Ave. 

Since then, Acting U.S. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman has expressed a desire to permanently keep the fencing and back-up forces. 

“In light of recent events, I can unequivocally say that the vast improvements to the physical security infrastructure must be made to include permanent fencing, and the availability of ready, back-up forces in close proximity to the Capitol,” Pittman said in his statement released by U.S. Capitol Police.  

 The response from lawmakers, councilmembers, and DC residents have been overwhelmingly negative. 

Many lawmakers have expressed that a physical barrier would undermine the name of the “people’s house;” the messages of accountability, transparency, and unity between the people and lawmakers would be deterred by closing the Capitol off from the public. 

Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), D.C.’s sole member of the House, illustrated these sentiments in a letter to Capitol police this week: “Permanent fencing would send the wrong message to the nation and the world, by transforming our democracy from one that is accessible and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its citizens.”

Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D), also expressed her disdain for the Police Chief’s proposal in a tweet last week: “I adamantly oppose this action. A fence didn’t fail us. Law enforcement leaders did,” said the Virginia representative. “I believe we can keep Members, press, staff, my constituents, and all those who work here safe without walling off the symbol of our democracy. It’s the People’s House – let’s keep it that way.” 

“This is the People’s House. I am adamantly opposed,” tweeted Rep. Elise Stefanik (R). “There has been no threat briefing given to Members of Congress to justify this proposal.”

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) also joins the growing group of people against the permanent fencing on Thursday afternoon in a tweet: “When the time is right, the fencing around the White House and U.S. Capitol, just like the plywood we’ve seen on our businesses for too long, will be taken down.”

Allison Cunningham, a DC local, made a petition that has since received over 6,500 signatures. The petition was drafted in hopes of getting attention from Capitol Police: “Visitors and residents of DC would be punished by a permanent fence, a permanent scar on our beautiful city, and would lose access to this beautiful beacon of democracy.”

The future of the Capitol building and its significance in modern American culture is clear in its appeal to the public as their house – a place where the voices of average Americans are heard and where American politics evolve.

The fencing also caused other serious problems to occur on Monday afternoon: Federal law mandates that the DC council hand in bills physically as they are passed to Congress. Due to the physical barriers, the congressional review of 60 bills were delayed. 

“The council has a requirement under the Home Rule Act to transmit all legislation to Congress for congressional review, but we can’t get through those fences,” said D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D). “We’ve been trying to figure out for the last 10 days how we can deliver legislation, because we cannot get through the fence, literally.” 

The issue was resolved when Vice President Kamala Harris’s staff became involved, but the problem lies in the inaccessibility that the fencing creates. 

The problem of adequate security still remains, and few people believe the space can be protected and open to the public simultaneously. One of these few, Susan Piedmont-Palladino, an architecture professor and coordinator of urban design at Virginia Tech, believes that absence of the general public will not work and adequate security “doesn’t involve keeping people away. It involves making that space more welcoming to civic behavior.” 

Others have expressed a need for a shift of focus of the problem; lack of physical security measures was not the only issue surrounding the riot on January 6. CNN reporter, Abby Phillip brought this idea to light: “But also, what is being done about the intelligence failure that allowed this attack to happen in the first place?” 

“In a government whose founding documents begin with the words, ‘We the People,’ any initiative to make [it] unreasonably difficult to access our seat of government is something that should be vehemently opposed,” said Blayne Clegg-Swann, President of College Republicans at CUA. “While there should obviously be security measures that are proportional to security threats, permanent fencing is reminiscent of third-world, authoritarian governments. Our government and elected officials work on our behalf, and they are not entitled to permanent security beyond what is absolutely necessary to ensure that they can continue to represent their constituents in Congress.

The building holds an apparent role in American heritage, as well as abundant meaning for DC lawmakers and locals. Public outcry against the permanent separation of the landmark and its people has been made overwhelmingly clear.