As detailed in the Secret Service’s request, which is attached and incorporated by reference, “these restrictions [are to] be put in place sufficiently in advance of the event to permit Secret Service personnel to secure the area in advance of the arrival of event participants and guests,” and that the restrictions be lifted after the conclusion of the event. It is the intention of the National Park Service to open these park areas to the general public as soon as the Secret Service advises that it is safe to do so. The National Park Service has determined that lesser restrictive measures will not suffice based on the Secret Service’s safety-based determination that vehicular traffic in these park areas need to be restricted to the general public during this time. This temporary restriction is not of a nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a “significant alteration in the public use pattern” given the temporary nature of the restriction, its application only to vehicular (but not pedestrian) traffic, and the existence of other available park and non-park areas that remain open to the public including other areas of the Ellipse, Lafayette Park, the National Mall, McPherson Square and other nearby park areas. Further, the closure will not adversely affect the park’s natural, aesthetic, or cultural values, does not require a significant alteration to the public use pattern of the park area, and is not of a highly controversial nature. Accordingly, the National Park Service 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 15200 (D.C. Cir. May 31, 1995). Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 1.7, notice of this temporary and partial closure 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 October 12, 2026 |
Last updated: October 22, 2026