No, a DOJ Attorney Didn't Say the Government Could 'Bulldoze' the Statue of Liberty — But the Real Story Is Still Alarming
“A DOJ attorney said the government could 'bulldoze' the Statue of Liberty”
The argument in brief
Viral posts claimed a DOJ attorney stated the government could bulldoze the Statue of Liberty. That's misleading — the phrase came from a judge, not the attorney. What actually happened is still concerning: the DOJ attorney argued for such sweeping executive power that when a federal judge posed the demolition scenario as a hypothetical stress test, the attorney failed to clearly rule it out.
Why it spread
The claim collapsed a nuanced, technical courtroom exchange into a visceral image of a beloved national monument being destroyed. It confirmed real fears about unchecked executive power, and outrage travels faster than context. Most people have never watched oral arguments and don't know that judges routinely put extreme words in attorneys' mouths to test their logic — so the misattribution felt completely plausible.
Social media posts in February 2025 claimed a DOJ attorney told a court the government could 'bulldoze' the Statue of Liberty. The verdict is partially false. The attorney never said those words. But the underlying story is not a simple exoneration.
Here is what actually happened. During a federal court hearing over Trump administration executive orders, a DOJ attorney argued for broad presidential authority. Judge John Coughenour — clearly skeptical — posed a pointed hypothetical: under the legal theory the DOJ was advancing, could the president order the Statue of Liberty demolished? According to NPR and The Guardian, the attorney's response was hedged and failed to firmly reject the premise. The judge found that alarming, and so did many observers.
The key distinction, confirmed by Reuters Fact Check and Snopes, is that the 'bulldoze' framing was the judge's language, not the attorney's. Courtroom hypotheticals are a standard tool judges use to probe the outer limits of a legal argument. The DOJ attorney did not volunteer the scenario — the judge invented it to expose how far the government's position could theoretically reach.
That said, the strongest version of the concern behind the viral claim is legitimate. The Washington Post reported that the DOJ was arguing for expansive executive authority, and the attorney's inability to draw a clear line against an extreme hypothetical is genuinely newsworthy. The outrage is not entirely misplaced — it is just aimed at the wrong quote.
This kind of story spreads because a complex legal exchange gets compressed into a single shocking image. 'Judge asks hypothetical, attorney gives worrying non-answer' is accurate but harder to share than 'DOJ says it can bulldoze the Statue of Liberty.' Watch for headlines that quote a courtroom participant without specifying who actually said what — in oral arguments, the most dramatic lines often come from the judge.
Sources
- Reuters Fact Check
A DOJ attorney made a hypothetical legal argument during a court hearing about executive power, but the 'bulldoze the Statue of Liberty' framing was a characterization by a judge, not a direct quote from the DOJ attorney.
- NPR
During a February 2025 federal court hearing, Judge John Coughenour posed a hypothetical asking if the president could order the Statue of Liberty demolished, and the DOJ attorney's response suggested broad executive authority, which the judge found alarming.
- The Guardian
The DOJ attorney did not volunteer the 'bulldoze' language; rather, the judge used it as a hypothetical to probe the limits of executive power the DOJ was arguing for, and the attorney's hedged response alarmed the court.
- Washington Post
The exchange occurred in the context of litigation over Trump administration executive orders; the DOJ attorney argued for expansive presidential authority, leading the judge to pose the Statue of Liberty hypothetical to illustrate the potential extremity of that position.
- Snopes
The claim as widely shared on social media implied the DOJ attorney proactively stated the government could demolish the Statue of Liberty, which is misleading; the scenario was introduced by the judge as a stress-test hypothetical during oral arguments.
Related debunks
- UnverifiableNo Verified Evidence That Cole Allen Visited the Ukrainian Embassy Before Any Shooting
- UnverifiableUnverifiable: A Governor Shared Misleading Abortion Data — But Which One?
- Partially FalseNo, JD Vance Didn't Say People Born to Noncitizens Should Be Deported — But His Actual Position Is Still Controversial