This United States Secret Service has determined that this public access restriction is necessary to ensure the security of the White House Complex, including to protect the President of the United States and other government officials. The closed areas described above are noted on the attached map and are further delineated by fencing. Violation is prohibited. The park closure comes at the request of the United States Secret Service to provide necessary security and provide a secure perimeter with sufficient stand-off distance to protect the White House Complex and those within it, and to provide necessary security and to protect the President and other protectees, visitors, and the White house during this time. Lesser restrictive measures will not suffice due to the Secret Service’s security-based assessment based on its assessment of sensitive intelligence that these park areas need to be kept clear. A copy of the Secret Service’s letter dated June 18, 2026, and map is attached and incorporated by reference. The use limitation will not adversely affect the park’s natural, aesthetic or cultural values; nor require significant modifications to the resource management objections; nor given the circumstances should it be a highly controversial nature. Indeed, other nearby park areas will remain open to the public and for demonstration activities. Additionally, these closures should not be controversial given the uncontroversial importance of the Secret Service’s protective mission and its assessment of need based on relevant incidents and intelligence. Accordingly, the NPS determines publication as rulemaking in the Federal Register is unwarranted under 36 C.F.R. § 1.5(b). This is consistent with hundreds of earlier partial and temporary park closures or public use limitations, the legal opinion of the Office of the Solicitor, and judicial adjudications. Mahoney v. Norton, No. 02-1715 (D.D.C. August 29, 2002), plaintiff’s emergency motion for injunction pending appeal denied Mahoney v. Norton, No. 02-5275 (D. C. Cir. September 9, 2002) (per curiam); Picciotto v. United States, No. 99-2113 (D.D.C. August 6, 1999); Picciotto v. United States, No. 94-1935 (D.D.C. September 9, 1994); Picciotto v. Lujan, No. 90-1261 (D.D.C. May 30, 1990); Picciotto v. Hodel, No. 87-3290 (D.D.C. January 26, 1988); Spiegel v. Babbitt, 855 F. Supp. 402 (D.D.C. 1994) aff’d in part w/o op. 56 F.3d 1531 (D.C. Cir. 1995), reported in full, 1995 US App. Lexis 5200 (D.C. Cir. May 31, 1995). Pursuant to 36 C.F.R.§ 1.7, notice of this public use limitation will be made through media advisories, maps, and by posting at conspicuous locations in the affected park areas. Finally, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 1.5(c), this determination is available to the public upon request. /s/ John Stanwich, NPS Liaison to the White House National Capital Region June 27, 2026 |
Last updated: June 29, 2026