The Dictatorship

The Smithsonian’s changing stories about Trump and impeachment

Published

11 months ago

August 4, 2025

The Smithsonian’s changing stories about Trump and impeachment

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History wants us to believe that there’s been a misunderstanding and that it’s not the latest major institution to wave a white flag before President Donald Trump.

In a move that critics worried could be an attempt to better align itself with Trump’s vision, the NMAH, as The Washington Post reported Thursday, removed mention of President Donald Trump’s impeachments from one of its main exhibitions, “The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden.” Congress leveled impeachment charges against Trump — twice. And Trump called the House of Representatives’ 2019 vote to impeach him “an embarrassment to the country.”

Trump called the House of Representatives’ 2019 vote to impeach him ‘an embarrassment to the country.’

But following accusations from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Friday that Trump was attempting to “rewrite history,” the museum said in a statement Saturday that information about Trump’s impeachment trials will be returned to the exhibit soon and that the placard mentioning those impeachments “did not meet the museum’s standards in appearance, location, timeline, and overall presentation.” The statement also said that the museum had not been “asked by any Administration or other government official to remove content from the exhibit.”

If you find that explanation hard to believe, that’s probably because the Smithsonian has been a preoccupation of Trump’s and his selectively backward-looking MAGA political movement. This year, Trump issued an executive order called “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” that blasted the Smithsonian’s acclaimed National Museum of African-American History and Culture as promoting “divisive race-centered ideology.” Shortly thereafter, Trump accused Kim Sajetthe director of the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, of being a “highly partisan person, and a supporter of DEI” and called for her removal. She eventually resigned.

In that initial Thursday report, The Washington Post’s Janay Kingsberry noted that the NMAH edited the “Limits of Presidential Power” section of its exhibition by turning back the clock and removing information about Trump’s impeachments that had been on display since September 2021. In a statement to the newspaper for Thursday’s story, Smithsonian spokesperson Phillip Zimmerman said, “The section of this exhibition covers Congress, The Supreme Court, Impeachmentand Public Opinion. Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance.” The timing has understandably raised eyebrows.

Only after that story was published did the Smithsonian tell the newspaper that “a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments.” In Saturday’s statement, the museum mentioned the appearance of the placard and said the update would be made “in the coming weeks.” For accuracy’s sake, we should hope so.

As it stands now, though, the section only includes President Andrew Jackson’s 1868 impeachment, President Bill Clinton’s 1998 impeachment and President Richard Nixon’s 1973 impeachment hearings. While Trump stands alone as the only U.S. president to be impeached twice, there’s presently no mention of this distinction.

The exhibit now says ‘only three presidents have seriously faced removal,’ but that hasn’t been true for almost six years.

As The Washington Post notes, the exhibit now says “only three presidents have seriously faced removal,” but that hasn’t been true for almost six years.

Though the Smithsonian insists it wasn’t pressured by Trump, The Washington Post’s Thursday report said the Trump references were removed from the impeachment exhibit after the Smithsonian undertook a full-scale content review following pressure from the White House and accusations of partisan bias. Again, that jibes with Trump’s statements about the Smithsonian’s museums and with his forcing out of the portrait gallery’s director.

Indeed, after months of political pressure, the Smithsonian announced in June that directors at all of the Smithsonian’s 21 museums and galleries were required to inspect their content and make any changes, including personnel changes, to “ensure unbiased content.”

Mention of Trump’s impeachments just so happened to be erased weeks later.

Over the decades, the Smithsonian has occasionally found itself ensnarled in political controversy and faced pressure to modify its exhibitions. For the 50th anniversary of the U.S. dropping atomic bombs on Japan, the Smithsonian’s Air and Space Museum repeatedly adjusted its content about the decisive action and its tragic fallout in response to political outrage over even a whiff of critical reflection about the bombings. Eventually, the museum canceled the exhibition altogether, and its director, Martin Harwit, resigned after Congress called for his removal and threatened to cancel funding.

More than a decade later, the National Portrait Gallery made headlines for pulling a video installation commenting on the 1980s AIDS crisis on the grounds it was sacrilegious.

Of course, we’d suspect Trump of being involved in the editing out of his impeachments when he and his MAGA political movement support censorship and revisionist histories that recast the United States and Trump himself as heroic and blameless.

Of course, we’d suspect Trump of being involved in the editing out of his impeachments.

Saturday’s statement from the Smithsonian says it hasn’t yielded to political pressure. Let’s hope that’s true, because like the dismantling of DEI programs and the multimillion-dollar settlements agreed to by universities under attack from Trump’s government, any capitulation from the Smithsonian would hit hard. We expect, we need more from our civil society institutions if they are to serve as a counterbalance to political and economic power. Civil society, which includes our public museums, libraries and universities, is not separate from politics or the economy, but it’s important that those institutions not be dictated by them.

Let’s face it: Like all colonial projects, museums are not neutral,but they have long been essential in supplementing school curricula, serving as research centers, educating American and international tourists, and contributing to regional economies. It’s impossible to imagine Washington, D.C., without the National Mall and its assorted museums, monuments and memorials. But it’s getting easier to imagine wild additions and deletions being made to them without truth or the public’s trust in mind.

This is especially the case considering that White House spokesperson Davis Ingle characterized the Smithsonian’s removal of Trump’s impeachments as an opportunity to better “highlight American greatness” rather than what the Trump administration considers “divisive” content. We’re left to wonder what further changes we’ll see, who will make the final call and with whose interests in mind.

Truthfully representing our national history, including the shameful parts and not just the heroic ones, is the Smithsonian’s glorious burden. Unfortunately, with the way this latest move was executed, there’s reason to doubt it’s up for the challenge.

Robyn Autry

Robyn Autry is a sociology professor and director of the Center for the Study of Public Life at Wesleyan University. She is the author of “Desegregating the Past: The Public Life of Memory in the U.S. and South Africa.”

The Dictatorship

Judge halts executive order seeking to create federal voter list…

Published

4 minutes ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Judge halts executive order seeking to create federal voter list…

BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, sided with a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the Republican president’s order in granting a summary judgment. Her ruling applies to this year’s midterm election cycle.

Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuitsboth filed in federal court in Boston, that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The judge agreed, saying in her ruling that the provisions of Trump’s order seeking to create a federal list of eligible voters and using the U.S. Postal Service to determine who can receive a mail ballot are “legally void” because they “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”

It was the second ruling in as many days against executive orders Trump has signed seeking oversight of the nation’s elections. A separate ruling Wednesday prohibited an executive order he had signed last year that would have required people to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote.

Order targeted mail voting, administration likely to appeal

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, whose state was among the plaintiffs, celebrated the court’s decision.

“Millions of independents, Republicans and Democrats across Arizona have voted by mail for decades,” she said in a statement, noting that nearly 80% of ballots in the state are cast by that method.

Mayes, a Democrat, singled out military families, voters in the state’s rural expanses and Native Americans who cast ballots from tribal lands.

“Donald Trump’s executive order targeted all of these voters,” she said. “But today, the courts affirmed what the Constitution makes clear: States run their elections, not the President.”

AP AUDIO: Federal judge halts Trump’s election executive order seeking to create a federal voter list

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports President Trump has suffered a legal setback for a second straight day in his bid to get oversight of the nation’s elections.

The White House stood by Trump’s executive order and indicated the administration would appeal the ruling. The order, said spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, “lawfully protects our elections, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail in its implementation.”

The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits challenging the order, argued that the motions were premature and that plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

But in an interim order before Thursday’s ruling, Talwani said the motions pertaining to this year’s election cycle were relevant: “In light of the EO’s specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period with the November 3, 2026 midterm occurring in just five months, postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs,” she wrote. That order denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the challenges.

Executive order sought to give Postal Service a central role in elections

Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.

Trump issued his second order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government — through the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration — create a “state citizenship list” of eligible voters. It then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list.

Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos.

The Postal Service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.

Postal Service workers have pushed back against the order, saying they are not equipped to determine who is eligible to vote in each state. After Trump issued his order last spring, the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association said forcing its members into such a role “risks politicizing one of the nation’s most trusted public institutions.”

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat whose state was among the plaintiffs, said the executive order illustrated how Trump was attempting to “abuse power in previously unthinkable ways” to interfere in elections.

She said it “strains credulity” to think the U.S. Postal Service could set up a workable system for pre-screening individual voters to determine whether they would be allowed to vote by mail, adding that it would be “a shocking violation of American constitutional rights.”

The Postal Service did not immediately respond Thursday to requests for comment.

Trump’s second election executive order faces multiple legal challenges

The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was filed by Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states and the District of Columbia. Also signing on were attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, which has a Republican attorney general.

The states also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, had argued that no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.

The other lawsuit filed in Talwani’s court was by the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups, which have sought a preliminary injunction against the executive order.

In yet another lawsuit filed against the executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in May agreed with the Trump administration that it was too early to block the order because it had yet to be implemented. That lawsuit was brought by Democratic and civil rights groups, which have appealed.

Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe BidenTrump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigationsincluding ones run by Republicansfound it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.

___

Barrow reported from Atlanta and Hanna from Topeka, Kansas.

The Dictatorship

California voters to decide billionaire tax measure in November

Published

12 hours ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

California voters to decide billionaire tax measure in November

Jun. 25, 2026, 10:25 PM EDT

California voters will consider a controversial proposal in November to temporarily raise taxes on billionaires after the labor union backing the measure announced Thursday it would forge ahead despite pressure from critics to withdraw it.

The proposal, backed by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time 5% tax on individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion and who were living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026. The goal is to generate $100 billion in revenue, mainly to fund the state’s Medicaid system after federal cuts.

“I am all in on this,” union President Dave Regan said on a Zoom call, adding that opponents of the proposal are “totally out of touch.”

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and many traditional allies of the union oppose the measure. They argue it is a temporary fix for an ongoing problem and that it would push the ultrawealthy to leave the state, taking the money they would contribute in income taxes with them. Newsom, who is considering a presidential run as he prepares to leave office in January, has generally opposed tax increases during his time as governor.

A coalition of healthcare, education and housing groups — including the California Medical Association and California School Boards Association — banded together last week to fight the tax.

“The dangerous wealth tax directly threatens vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects by making California’s revenue even more volatile,” the coalition said in a statement.

Brian Brokaw, a Newsom political adviser who is leading a political committee opposing the tax, said it would “make California’s biggest challenges worse.”

“Driving away the state’s sustainable tax base for a one-time grab is bad policy and an even worse deal for 40 million Californians who will be left holding the bag,” he said in a statement.

Under the proposal, the state would spend the money generated from the tax over multiple years. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the proposal would generate tens of billions of dollars in the first few years, but that income tax revenues would subsequently decline by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Many of the Silicon Valley tech moguls who oppose the measure have already moved their assets to other states or threatened to do so to avoid the possible tax. They have also spent millions to try to defeat it.

Since the proposal was announced in October, Google co-founder Sergey Brin has donated $82 million to a political committee called Building a Better California that backs a variety of initiatives designed to blunt the billionaire tax proposal. It has raised more than $118 million, counting Brin’s contributions, from fewer than a dozen donors.

California relies on its top 1% of earnersfor nearly half of its personal income tax revenue.

The union offered to scale back its proposal last week, asking Newsom to back a 2% tax on billionaires instead. But the governor’s office said the lower rate didn’t change his stance.

The proposed tax may have piqued the interest of many Democrats because it comes at a time when they are particularly concerned about affordability, income inequality and federal cutbacks to government programs, said Martin Gilens, a political science professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“There’s kind of a perfect storm that sort of bolsters preexisting inclinations to be sympathetic to the idea of raising taxes on the well-to-do,” he said.

But there’s a catch. Support for ballot initiatives often declines as the election nears, and if the measure passes, it’s likely to face legal challenges, Gilens said.

The Dictatorship

Flattery, secrecy and chaos: Bill Pulte’s first week as intel chief

Published

12 hours ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Flattery, secrecy and chaos: Bill Pulte’s first week as intel chief

Jun. 25, 2026, 7:15 PM EDT

Since taking office one week ago, Bill Pulte, the acting director of national intelligence, has busied himself on social media posting flattering photos of President Donald Trump, trivia about a former counterintelligence agent and praising his current staff.

What the Trump loyalist with no intelligence experience has not done is address the public about his plans, or calm the unease and confusion inside the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is being described by top officials as “chaotic” amid firings of senior personnel with threats of more to come.

One image posted to the official X account of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, apparently artificial intelligence-generated, features Trump raising a clenched fist in the air with two B-2 stealth bombers in the sky behind him. Another is an image of the president, his fist clenched, glowering as he stands behind the Oval Office’s Resolute Desk.

In another post, Pulte, who was expected to gut the workforce of the National Counterterrorism Center, instead declared the staff there “true professionals and American patriots” after he said he spent time with them, adding “it is a privilege to work beside them.”

And in an apparent attempt at levity, Pulte reposted a message reminding Americans that Tuesday was “National Typewriter Day” and informing them of the role that a former Army counterintelligence agent played.

“Fun CI fact,” the post reads. “Former Army CI Special Agent Leroy Anderson composed ‘The Typewriter’ on October 9, 1950.”

But Pulte’s arrival has sparked anxiety and fear among the office’s workforce, three former U.S. intelligence officials told MS NOW, granted anonymity to address a sensitive topic.

They said that a half dozen political appointees were removed from their posts and several dozen staffers were sent back to their home intelligence agencies. Beyond that, little else is known about Pulte’s plans.

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told MS NOW that his requests for more information from the office, known by the acronym ODNI, have been rebuffed.

“I’ve been calling over there all day and can’t get my calls returned,” said Himes.

He later said, “I spoke directly to their office of congressional affairs. They said they had nothing for me.”

“It seems like it’s totally chaotic at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on a podcast Wednesday. “There was word that there was going to be firings and then he said he changed his mind. We don’t know.”

Marc Polymeropoulos, a former senior CIA official and now an MS NOW contributor, said that staff in the intelligence community do not know what to think.

“Everyone is in the same boat and unsure of what is going on,” he said. “That said, there is no love lost for the DNI, as many believe that there is redundancy that does need to be cut.”

The other former U.S. intelligence officials said they agree that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is in need of reform. The agency was created after a lack of information sharing among U.S. intelligence agencies played a role in the failure to stop the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ODNI’s mission is to ensure that the country’s now 18 different intelligence agencies share information with one another.

But the former intelligence officials said Pulte is patently unqualified to design or carry out those reforms.

“As with many things Trump alights upon, there is a sliver of truth here but he goes about addressing it in the worst possible way,” a former senior U.S. intelligence official told MS NOW, granted anonymity over concerns of retaliation. “But mass firings without any kind of sense of what you are trying to accomplish is addressing it in the most ham-handed way.”

That former official, as well as Warner and Himes, have said they fear that Pulte’s mission is to use his position as the nation’s top intelligence official to help Trump interfere in the midterm elections in November.

Pulte, who simultaneously serves as the Trump administration’s top federal housing official as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, used government mortgage information to file several criminal referrals against Democrats whom Trump considered enemies, including Sen. Adam Schiff of California and New York State Attorney General Letitia James. None of Pulte’s referrals have resulted in criminal convictions.

One fear expressed by Warner and some former intelligence officials is that Pulte may try to falsely claim that his office has found evidence that foreign governments are secretly funding Democratic candidates.

One way he could do that, they say, is by falsely claiming foreign actors have hacked U.S. voting machines and altered vote totals in favor of Democrats. And Pulte and FBI agents could seize voting machines, ballots and election records in November — as Gabbard did in Fulton County, Georgia, last year at Trump’s behest — as part of voter fraud investigations that please the president.

“I have to tell you, I was extraordinarily concerned about the former director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, interfering in our election,” Warner told NPR earlier this month. “The concerns I had with Tulsi Gabbard now, upon reflection, look small versus the concerns I have with Bill Pulte.”

David Rohde is the senior national security reporter for MS NOW and a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. Previously he was the senior executive editor for national security and law for NBC News.