american history

President Trump on Tuesday said he intends to expand his crusade against what he calls “woke” ideology from the Smithsonian Institution to museums across the country.

“The Museums throughout Washington, but all over the Country are, essentially, the last remaining segment of ‘WOKE,’” Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding that the Smithsonian is “out of control,” and that everything featured in its exhibits discuss, “how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future.”

To prevent more of the same in other institutions, Trump said he has instructed his attorneys, “to go through the Museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made.”

Contacted for comment, a White House rep said, “President Trump will explore all options and avenues to get the Woke out of the Smithsonian and hold them accountable. He will start with the Smithsonian and then go from there.”

They did not respond to a request for clarification on how the administration intends to vet the content of exhibits at other museums, or whether or not the president intends to issue an executive order with details on a plan.

Trump’s concern about the Smithsonian first became public in late March when he issued an executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which directed Vice President JD Vance to remove “improper ideology” from the Smithsonian’s 21 museums and the National Zoo in Washington, D.C.

Two months later, Trump exerted even greater control when he said he’d fired Kim Sajet, the longtime director of the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, for being “a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.” It soon became apparent that it wasn’t in Trump’s power to do so and Sajet continued to work.

In early June the Smithsonian rejected Trump’s attempt to fire Sajet after a lengthy Board of Regents meeting. The Regents issued a statement stating that the organization’s secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch, “has the support of the Board of Regents in his authority and management of the Smithsonian.” It was implied that Bunch would be the one making personnel decisions, not Trump.

Still, the statement opened the door to the idea that the Smithsonian might make changes that would appease Trump’s criticism.

“To reinforce our nonpartisan stature, the Board of Regents has directed the Secretary to articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums, give directors reasonable time to make any needed changes to ensure unbiased content, and to report back to the Board on progress and any needed personnel changes based on success or lack thereof in making the needed changes,” the statement read.

Sajet resigned a few days later, writing in a note to staff, “From the very beginning, my guiding principle has been to put the museum first. Today, I believe that stepping aside is the best way to serve the institution I hold so deeply in my heart.”

Other museums are ringing alarm bells about what it could mean for art and history at large.

The Japanese American National Museum in L.A.’s Little Tokyo recently issued a statement condemning what it called the, “Reshaping of Smithsonian Museums” to fit “the administration’s historical interpretation.”

“These latest attempts to sanitize and reshape history to fit a narrow ideological narrative amount to nothing less than the erasure of history,” said JANM’s President and Chief Executive Ann Burroughs. “We cannot reverse America’s journey toward a more just and equitable future. Museums must be places of truth, not propaganda — spaces where the next generation can confront the complexity of our nation’s injustices, mistakes, and darkest chapters; where empathy, social responsibility, and the courage to defend democracy are nurtured.”

The American Alliance of Museums also recently issued a statement warning of “growing threats of censorship against U.S. museums.”

“In recent months, museums have faced increasing external pressures to modify, remove, or limit exhibitions and programs,” the statement read. “People trust museums because they rely on independent scholarship and research, uphold high professional standards, and embrace open inquiry. When any directive dictates what should or should not be displayed, it risks narrowing the public’s window into evidence, ideas, and a full range of perspectives.

“This is not just a concern for select institutions,” the statement continued. “These pressures can create a chilling effect across the entire museum sector.”

CALVERT CITY, Ky. — Republican Nate Morris had deftly warmed up a crowd of party faithful, gushing about President Donald Trump and recounting his own life’s journey — from hardscrabble childhood to wealthy entrepreneur — when he turned his attention to the man he wants to replace, Sen. Mitch McConnell.

That’s when things got feisty. While bashing Kentucky’s longest-serving senator at a GOP dinner on the eve of Saturday’s Fancy Farm picnic, a tradition-laden stop on the state’s political circuit, Morris was cut off in midsentence by a party activist in the crowd, who noted that McConnell isn’t seeking reelection and pointedly asked Morris: “What are you running on?”

Morris touted his hard line stance on immigration and defended Trump’s tariffs as a boon for American manufacturing. But he didn’t retreat from his harsh critique of McConnell.

“We’ve seen 40 years of doing it the same way,” Morris said. “And, yes, he’s not on the ballot, but his legacy is on the ballot. Do you want 40 more years of that? I don’t think you do.”

McConnell’s blunt-force approach used against him

The pushback from a county GOP chairman revealed the political risks of attacking the 83-year-old McConnell in the twilight of his career. Towering over Kentucky politics for decades, McConnell is regarded as the master strategist behind the GOP’s rise to power in a state long dominated by Democrats. The state Republican headquarters bears McConnell’s name. As the longest-serving Senate party leader in U.S. history, McConnell guided Republican policymaking and helped forge a conservative Supreme Court. Back home, his appropriating skills showered Kentucky with federal funding.

Now, his blunt-force style of campaigning — which undercut so many foes — is being used against him.

Morris is running against two other prominent Republicans — U.S. Rep. Andy Barr and former state Attorney General Daniel Cameron — for McConnell’s seat. The outcome will be decided in the spring primary next year. Kentucky hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate since Wendell Ford in 1992.

All three Republican hopefuls lavish praise on Trump — in hopes of landing his endorsement — but also have ties to McConnell, who mentored generations of aspirational Republicans. Cameron and Barr have chided McConnell at times, but it’s been mild compared to Morris’ attacks. Morris interned for McConnell but glosses over that connection.

McConnell pushes back

At events surrounding the Fancy Farm picnic, an event long known for caustic zingers that he has always relished, McConnell showed no sign of backing down.

“Surely this isn’t true, but I’ve heard that one of the candidates running for my office wants to be different,” McConnell told a Republican crowd that included Morris at a pre-picnic breakfast in Mayfield. “Now, I’m wondering how you’d want to be different from the longest-serving Senate leader in American history. I’m wondering how you’d want to be different in supporting President Trump.”

McConnell received multiple standing ovations. Morris stayed seated.

McConnell has consistently voted for Trump’s policies more often than Kentucky’s other Republican senator, Rand Paul, according to a Congressional Quarterly voting analysis. McConnell recently supported Trump’s signature tax and spending measure. Paul opposed it, saying it would drive up debt.

Yet Morris has taken on McConnell, who has famously had an up-and-down relationship with Trump.

McConnell teamed with Trump to put conservatives on the federal bench and pass tax cuts during the president’s first term. McConnell also guided the Senate — and Trump — through two impeachment trials that ended in acquittals. But the relationship was severed after McConnell blamed Trump for “disgraceful” acts in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack by Trump’s supporters.

McConnell endorsed Trump in 2024, but in a biography by Michael Tackett of The Associated Press, released shortly before the election, McConnell described him as “a despicable human being.”

Running against career politicians

Morris, who started a waste management technology company, says the senator has been insufficiently loyal to Trump and allowed festering issues like immigration and the national debt to grow worse during his years in Senate leadership.

Morris wants to tether his opponents to McConnell while running on anti-establishment themes that his campaign thinks will appeal to legions of Trump supporters in the Bluegrass State.

“Let’s face it, folks, career politicians have run this country off a cliff,” Morris said.

Morris’ rivals sum up the anti-McConnell attacks as an angry, backward-looking message. Cameron called it a diversionary tactic to obscure what he said is Morris’ lack of both a message and credibility as a supporter of Trump’s MAGA movement.

“He can’t talk about his actual record. So he has to choose to pick on an 83-year-old,” Cameron said.

At Fancy Farm, where candidates hurl insults at one another against a backdrop of bingo games and barbecue feasts, Morris took a swipe at McConnell’s health.

“I have a serious question: who here can honestly tell me that it’s a good thing to have a senior citizen who freezes on national television during his press conferences as our U.S. senator?” Morris said. “It seems, to me, maybe just maybe, Mitch’s time to leave the Senate was a long time ago.”

McConnell had his customary front-row seat for much of the event but wasn’t there for Morris’ remarks. He typically leaves before all the speeches are delivered and exited before his would-be successors spoke.

Living by the sword

McConnell complimented Trump in his speech, singling out Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites.

“He turned Iran’s nuclear program into a pile of rocks,” McConnell, a steadfast advocate for a muscular U.S. foreign policy, said to cheers.

At the GOP dinner the night before in Calvert City, where candidates typically are more politely received, party activist Frank Amaro confronted Morris for his anti-McConnell barrage.

“He keeps bashing Mitch McConnell like he’s running against Mitch McConnell,” Amaro, a county Republican chairman, said afterward. “Overall, he’s helped Kentucky and the United States, especially our Supreme Court, more than any other U.S. senator in this country.”

But Morris’ blistering assessment of McConnell hit the mark with Trump supporter Patrick Marion, who applied the dreaded Republican-in-Name-Only label to McConnell.

“Personally, I think Mitch has been a RINO for way too long,” Marion said later. “I don’t think he was a true MAGA supporter of President Trump.”

Afterward, Morris was in no mood to back off.

“He’s the nastiest politician maybe in the history of this state if not in the history of this country,” Morris said of McConnell. “Look, you live by the sword, you die by the sword.”

Schreiner writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — The Smithsonian Institution has removed from an exhibit a reference to President Trump’s two impeachments, a decision that comes as the White House exerts pressure to offer a more positive — and selective — view of American history. A spokesperson said the exhibit eventually “will include all impeachments.”

A label referring to impeachment had been added in 2021 to the National Museum for American History’s exhibit on the American presidency, in a section called “Limits of Presidential Power.” Smithsonian spokesperson Phillip Zimmerman said Friday that the section, which includes materials on the impeachment of President Clinton and the Watergate scandal that helped lead to President Nixon’s resignation, needed to be overhauled. He said the decision came after the museum was “reviewing our legacy content recently.”

“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,” Zimmerman said in an email.

He said that in September 2021, the museum installed a temporary label on content concerning Trump’s impeachments. “It was intended to be a short-term measure to address current events at the time,” he said. But the label remained in place.

“A large permanent gallery like the American Presidency that opened in 2000 requires a significant amount of time and funding to update and renew,” he said. “A future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments.”

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said the Smithsonian has “highlighted divisive DEI exhibits which are out of touch with mainstream America” for too long.

“We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness,” he said in a statement that did not address the missing reference to Trump’s impeachments.

Trump’s impeachments were more recent

Trump is the only president to have been impeached twice — in 2019, for pushing Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, who would defeat Trump in the 2020 election; and in 2021 for “incitement of insurrection,” a reference to the Jan. 6, 2021, siege of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters attempting to halt congressional certification of Biden’s victory.

The Democratic majority in the House voted each time for impeachment. The Republican-led Senate each time acquitted Trump. Soon after Trump’s first impeachment, the history museum issued a statement saying that curators “will determine which objects best represent these historic events for inclusion in the national collection.”

Since returning to office in January, Trump has cut funding, forced out officials and otherwise demanded changes across a range of Washington cultural institutions, including the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, the Kennedy Center and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

The current administration has targeted interpretations of history

In March, Trump issued an executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” in which he alleged that the Smithsonian was beholden to “a divisive, race-centered ideology.” He has placed Vice President JD Vance in charge of an effort to ensure no funding goes to “exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.”

Congressional Democrats issued a statement in April calling Trump’s order a “flagrant attempt to erase Black history.”

Last week, artist Amy Sherald canceled a planned exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery after officials raised concerns over her painting “Trans Forming Liberty, 2024,” in which she depicts a nonbinary transgender person posing as the Statue of Liberty. Sherald is best known for her painting of then-First Lady Michelle Obama, which was commissioned by the Portrait Gallery.

Founded in the 19th century, the Smithsonian oversees a network of cultural centers that includes the portrait gallery, the history museum, the National Zoo and the Smithsonian Gardens. News of the Trump impeachment label being removed was first reported by the Washington Post.

Italie writes for the Associated Press.

File this as prett-ay, prett-ay, prett-ay good news: Larry David is returning to TV with a new six-episode sketch comedy about American history, produced the Obamas’ by Higher Ground.

He will be writing the HBO series alongside Jeff Schaffer, who was a showrunner, executive producer and director on “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” David will star in the series, which will feature some actors from “Curb” as well as noteworthy guest stars.

Schaffer and David will both executive produce, with Schaffer taking the lead on directing. Barack and Michelle Obama will be executive producing the limited series for their banner Higher Ground Productions alongside Vinnie Malhotra and Ethan Lewis.

HBO’s official logline reads, “President and Mrs. Obama wanted to honor America’s 250th anniversary and celebrate the unique history of our nation on this special occasion.

…But then Larry David called.”

“Once ‘Curb’ ended, I celebrated with a three-day foam party,” David said in a press release. “After a violent allergic reaction to the suds, I yearned to return to my simple life as a beekeeper, harvesting organic honey from the wildflowers in my meadow. Alas, one day my bees mysteriously vanished. And so, it is with a heavy heart that I return to television, hoping to ease the loss of my beloved hive.”

Obama added, “I’ve sat across the table from some of the world’s most difficult leaders and wrestled with some of our most intractable problems. Nothing has prepared me for working with Larry David.”

The beloved and critically acclaimed “Curb Your Enthusiasm” aired for a total of 12 seasons from 2000 to 2024.

“The characters Larry is playing didn’t change history. In fact, they were largely ignored by history. And that’s a good thing,” Schaffer said.

David and Schaffer have also worked together on “Seinfeld” and the TV movie “Clear History,” which starred David. Schaffer is also known for his work as the co-creator of “The League” and “Dave” at FX. And David is no stranger to sketch TV comedy — he was a writer and performer on ABC’s early ‘80s late-night series “Fridays.”

California’s fight to rein in President Trump’s deployment of troops to Los Angeles hinges on a 19th century law with a a blood-soaked origin and a name that seems pulled from a Spaghetti Western.

In a pivotal ruling this week, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ordered the federal government to hand over evidence to state authorities seeking to prove that the actions of troops in Southern California violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids soldiers from enforcing civilian laws.

“How President Trump has used and is using the federalized National Guard and the Marines since deploying them at the beginning of June is plainly relevant to the Posse Comitatus Act,” Breyer wrote Wednesday in his order authorizing “limited expedited discovery.”

The Trump administration objected to the move and has already once gotten a sweeping Breyer ruling that would’ve limited White House authority over the troops overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This time, the Northern District of California judge made clear he would “only allow discovery as to the Posse Comitatus Act” — signaling what could be the state’s last stand battle to prevent Marines and National Guard forces from participating in immigration enforcement.

The Posse Comitatus Act dates back to the aftermath of the Civil War when the American government faced violent resistance to its efforts to rebuild Southern state governments and enforce federal law following the abolition of slavery.

The text of the law itself is slight, its relevant section barely more than 60 words. Yet when it was enacted, it served as the legal epitaph to Reconstruction — and a preface to Jim Crow.

“It has these very ignoble beginnings,” said Mark P. Nevitt, a law professor at Emory University and one of the country’s foremost experts on the statute.

Before the Civil War, the U.S. military was kept small, in part to avoid the kinds of abuses American colonists suffered under the British.

Authorities back then could marshal a crew of civilians, called a posse comitatus, to assist them, as sometimes happened in California during the Gold Rush. States also had militias that could be called up by the president to pad out the army in wartime.

But law enforcement by the U.S. military was rare and deeply unpopular. Historians have said the use of soldiers to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act — which saw escaped slaves hunted down and returned to the South — helped spark the Civil War.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has used constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act to justify using troops to round up immigrants. Experts said leaders from the antebellum South demanded similar enforcement of the law.

“The South was all for posse comitatus when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act,” said Josh Dubbert, a historian at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Library in Ohio.

But by the time Congress sent federal troops to begin Reconstruction in earnest in 1867, the landscape was very different.

After white rioters razed Black neighborhoods in Memphis and mobs of ex-Confederate soldiers massacred Black demonstrators in New Orleans in the spring of 1866, “most of the South [was] turned into military districts,” said Jacob Calhoun, a professor of American history at Wabash College and an expert on Reconstruction.

“Most scholars, let alone the American public, do not understand the scale of racial violence during Reconstruction,” Calhoun said. “They only send these troops in after unimaginable levels of violence.”

At the polls, Black voters were met by white gangs seeking to prevent them from casting ballots.

“For most of American history, the idea of an American army intervening in elections is a nightmare,” Calhoun said. “[Posse Comitatus] is reemphasizing this longstanding belief but for more nefarious purposes.”

The Posse Comitatus language was tucked into an appropriations bill by Southern Democrats after their party won control of Congress in the election of 1876 — “possibly the most violent election in American history_,” Calhoun said.

Historians say white lawmakers in the post-war South sought to enshrine their ability to keep Black men from voting by barring federal forces from bolstering the local militias that protected them.

“Once they’re in control of Congress, they want to cut the appropriations for the army,” Dubbert said. “They attach this amendment to [their appropriations bill] which is the Posse Comitatus Act.”

The bill won support from some Republicans, who resented the use of federalized troops to put down the Railroad Strike of 1877 — the first national labor strike in the U.S.

“It is a moment in which white Northern congressmen surrender the South back to ex-Confederates,” Calhoun said. “With the Posse Comitatus Act, racial violence becomes the norm.”

Yet the statute itself largely vanished from memory, little used for most of the next century.

“The Posse Comitatus Act was forgotten for about 75 years, from after Reconstruction to basically the 1950s, when a defense lawyer made a challenge to a piece of evidence that the Army had obtained,” Nevitt said. “The case law is [all] after World War II.”

Those cases have largely turned on troops who arrest, search, seize or detain civilians — “the normal thing the LAPD does on a daily basis,” Nevitt said. The courts have stood by the bedrock principle that military personnel should not be used to enforce the law against civilians, he said, except in times of rebellion or other extreme scenarios.

“Our nation was forged in large part because the British military was violating the civil rights of colonists in New England,” Nevitt said. “I really can’t think of a more important question than the military’s ability to use force against Americans.”

Yet, the law is full of loopholes, scholars said — notably in relation to use of the National Guard.

Department of Justice has argued Posse Comitatus does not apply to the military’s current actions in Southern California — and even if it did, the soldiers deployed there haven’t violated the law. It also claimed the 9th Circuit decision endorsing Trump’s authority to call up troops rendered the Posse Comitatus issue moot.

Some experts feel California’s case is strong.

“You literally have military roaming the streets of Los Angeles with civilian law enforcement,” said Shilpi Agarwal, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California, “That’s exactly what the [act] is designed to prevent.”

But Nevitt was more doubtful. Even if Breyer ultimately rules that Trump’s troops are violating the law and grants the injunction California is seeking, the 9th Circuit will almost certainly strike it down, he said.

“It’s going to be an uphill battle,” the attorney said. “And if they find a way to get to the Supreme Court, I see the Supreme Court siding with Trump as well.”

American history has the receipts. As we approach the 250th anniversary of this nation’s birth, it ought to be common knowledge that putting the National Guard into the center of turmoil is not to be taken at all lightly. Federalizing the California Guard to quell a supposed insurrection on the streets of greater Los Angeles is a bold move of presidential showmanship and look-tough opportunism. It is also risky on many fronts.

We have been here before, and we would be wise to heed history’s caution. In the spring of 1894, a nationwide railroad strike, spreading out from the outskirts of Chicago, paralyzed freight and passenger rail traffic up and down California. Strikers took to the streets, occupied railroad depots, often with their families, waved signs, and erected tents and hastily constructed shanties. In Oakland, strikers who had “killed” a locomotive covered it in black crepe.

Political leaders and railroad officials insisted that the strikers were insurrectionists ripping at the fabric of the republic. But the public did not necessarily see things the same way. Strikers who were hunkered down in Northern California depots took in provisions from farmers loyal to their cause. A U.S. marshal sent to Sacramento to clear them out and get the trains moving was beaten up and insisted later that the local police force was sympathetic to the strikers.

Judging the Sacramento situation as an insurrection, Gov. H.H. Markham of Pasadena called up the National Guard, which mustered first in San Francisco on July 3. Some elderly Civil War veterans volunteered for duty but were politely turned away. Instead, young California guardsmen, each given 20 rounds of ammunition, marched to the Bay amid a jeering crowd, took a ferry to Oakland and tried to get to Sacramento by train.

But all train service had been interrupted by the strike, and skilled rail operators did not want to cross the picket lines. After nine hours, the exhausted guardsmen arrived in Sacramento early on the morning of July 4 — having taken a train through a circuitous route to avoid trouble. They marched to the city armory, then on to the occupied depot, where they were met by Sacramento members of the National Guard who were already deployed. Guardsmen — about 1,000 weekend warriors — stood in the hot sun, rifles at the ready alongside the Gatling gun they brought, facing the railroad strikers camped out in the depot with their wives and children. One Guardsman’s gun went off accidentally, killing a bystander. Officers ordered their men to fix their bayonets and, if ordered to shoot, to “aim to kill.”

One Sacramento unit reported that its men would not fire on their friends and relatives. Other Guardsmen wore their sympathies on their sleeves and lapels: pro-striker buttons. The strikers and their families began to mingle with the phalanx of guardsmen. “Frank, if you kill me you make your sister a widow,” one striker informed her brother-in-law in the Guard. Some guardsmen removed the ammunition from their weapons; others lowered them and just wandered away — toward the lemonade and ice that the protesters themselves provided. The strikers stayed in the depot for weeks. The whole thing was a chaotic farce.

Matters were hardly any less tense in Southern California. People lined the streets of downtown Los Angeles, chanting and cheering for the strikers, many of whom wore American flag lapels. Photographs of goings on in Sacramento and the Bay Area got passed from one Angeleno to another in the crowd. Guardsmen in L.A. expressed the same kind of trepidation about bringing militarized force to bear on the strikers. “If we had to fight Indians or some common enemy,” one guardsman offered in a revelatory admission, “we might have some fun and excitement. But this idea of shooting down American citizens simply because they are on strike for what they consider their rights is a horse of another color. All of the boys are against it from first to last, and many are in sympathy with the strikers.”

In hindsight, the federal and state response to the rail strike of 1894 appears to have lacked some consideration of unintended consequences. Calling in the Guard only created chaos, emboldened the strikers and, for a time at least, sustained much of the public’s support. The federal government, with some seeing 1894 as “the greatest crisis in our history,” allied with the rail corporations in a set of legal maneuverings that led to the deployment of federal troops across the country. As the strike dissipated, each side tried to take the high ground of intention and behavior: The crisis was lawlessness or it was unwarranted government overreach.

Though it is too soon to know how things will play out here in L.A. this time, nothing looks good from the rough scenes in downtown and the adjacent freeway exits and entrances.

Mark Twain said that “history never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.” Here we have that rhyme written in the latest Los Angeles verse of our tense world. The administration’s move to federalize the Guard in the name of quelling a domestic insurrection has poured more gasoline onto the tinder of our times here in the Southland.

Deverell is a professor of history at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts & Sciences.