Is Trump legally allowed to keep renaming everything after himself?

Trump recently floated the idea Congress would rename both New York’s Penn Station and Washington’s Dulles International Airport after him NewsWorldAmericasUS politicsIs Trump legally allowed to keep renaming everything after himself?Trump recently floated the idea Congress would rename both New York’s Penn Station and Washington’s Dulles International Airport after himJason Zenor The Conversation Wednesday 18 February 2026 20:48 GMTBookmarkBookmark popoverRemoved from bookmarksClose popoverLeavitt says all Truth Social posts are straight from Trump...a week after he blamed staffer for racist Obama videoYour support helps us to tell the storyRead moreSupport NowFrom reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.Your support makes all the difference.Read moreIn November 2025, the Trump administration announced a special park pass commemorating the nation’s 250th anniversary that featured images of two presidents: George Washington and Donald Trump.Featuring the current president – in place of the National Park Service’s usual landscape pictures – triggered both a lawsuit and a social media movement to put stickers over Trump’s face.As a businessman, Trump has frequently emblazoned buildings and consumer products – shoelaces, an airline, an edition of the Bible, among many others – with his own name.During his current presidential term, his administration has put his name on numerous government properties – perhaps most famously the Kennedy Center, but also money, monuments and military equipment. In January 2026, Trump floated the idea Congress would rename both New York’s Penn Station and Washington’s Dulles International Airport after him.With Florida lawmakers considering renaming the airport near Mar-a-Lago after the president, the Trump Organization has filed an application to trademark his name for use in airports and ancillary activities, although the company said it would not charge a fee in the case of the Palm Beach airport.TrumpRx, Trump Kennedy Center and Trump National Parks passes are just a few of the things the president has named after himself (AFP via Getty Images)As a communication professor who studies the First Amendment, I was intrigued by the federal actions and the protests they’ve triggered.Citizens certainly have the right to protest these decisions, like any government action. The First Amendment prevents the government from making laws that abridge freedom of speech.But does the federal government itself have freedom of speech? And can a president put his name and image wherever he wants?Free speech for governmentThe answer to the first question has already been answered. In a series of rulings, the Supreme Court has upheld the government speech doctrine, which allows the government as speaker to say whatever it wants.Moreover, if the forum is governmental, the government may even be able to compel people to express its messages – for example, with public employee speech that is part of job duties. The 2006 Supreme Court decision establishing that principle involved a deputy district attorney who’d questioned the validity of a warrant, but the rule applies to other employees, such as teachers who have to offer instruction in state-mandated curricula.The court’s decisions in government speech cases imply that if people do not like the government speech, they should change the government with their votes.However, some scholars and advocates argue that this relatively new constitutional doctrine gives the government too much power to drown out other viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas.In most instances, the government cannot compel speech or force citizens to express a certain message. Compelled speech is not allowed when the government is forcing a citizen to endorse an ideological message.For example, the Supreme Court allowed a Jehovah’s Witness to cover the words “or Die” on his license plate, which included the New Hampshire state motto, “Live Free or Die.”The First Amendment is not absolute, and some government regulations will infringe on speech.The federal government has strict regulations on how the American flag should be disposed of, but it cannot punish someone who is burning a flag as a form of political protest.Government control of its own productsWhat happens when the government itself hosts forums for citizen speec