In a world already bogged down with memoirs from people who probably didn’t need to write them, Eric Trump is now throwing his hat in the ring, too.
The son of President Donald Trump announced this week that “Under Siege”—which will be released in October—will reveal the juicy details of a purported calculated attack from the media, courts, and Democrats against the Trump family.
“From raids on his childhood home, Mar-a-Lago, to near assassination attempts, from Russiagate to cold and corrupt court rooms, the fake news media, censorship, and character smears—this wasn’t just an attack on a president, or even his family,” the memoir press release said. “America itself was under siege.”
President Donald Trump signs copies of his book, “Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again.”
On one hand, it might be a book worth renting from the local library—assuming it has the federal funding to carry it—just to see how one of the president’s children tries to justify an impeachment and a mugshot.
But if it’s anything like his father’s works, it might not even be worth reading for free.
After Donald published his book “Save America” in September 2024, the Washington Post unabashedly called the pages a collection of “occasional unhinged ramblings.”
“There probably aren’t more than a few hundred words total in this shiny work of propaganda, but if ‘Save America’ could be said to have a plot, it’s the epic struggle between Trump’s desire to exalt himself and his instinct to denigrate his enemies,” wrote book critic Ron Charles.
And for those who recall, Donald’s 1987 book, “Art of the Deal,” was written with journalist Tony Schwartz, who regretted his contributions later on.
"I knew this was a bad guy when I did the book," Schwartz admitted on CBS’ “Takeout” podcast in 2019. He said that he ultimately did it for the cash, which he called “blood money.”
It’s unclear if Eric has employed the help of a ghost writer to pen his diatribe or if the world will be lucky enough to get a taste of his writing chops. But it’s certainly not unlike the Trump family to delve into areas they’re not quite well versed in.
Even Eric’s wife, Lara Trump, has dabbled in her own patriotic athleisure brand as she pursues a career in singing Christian ballads and cover songs.
Election conspiracy theorist and disgraced former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is set to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Donald Trump.
The award, which is the highest civilian honor bestowed by the U.S. government, rewards Giuliani for his years of loyal service to Trump, marked by the promotion of crackpot theories, the failed legal fight to overturn the 2020 election, and dangerous quack science.
“I am pleased to announce that Rudy Giuliani, the greatest Mayor in the history of New York City, and an equally great American Patriot, will receive THE PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM, our Country’s highest civilian honor,” Trump wrote on his social media account on Monday.
Trump’s announcement comes a day after Giuliani announced that he had been hospitalized following a car crash in New Hampshire.
Giuliani served as mayor of New York from 1994 to 2001, most notably on Sept. 11, 2001. In 2008, Giuliani mounted a disastrous campaign for the Republican presidential nomination and became a part of Trump’s inner circle. For years, Giuliani has lurched from one embarrassing incident to the next in a public spiral with few parallels in American history.
Following Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election, Giuliani was part of Trump’s legal team and pushed ridiculous and easily debunked conspiracy theories, trying to spin Trump’s loss to Joe Biden as a win.
In the days after that election, Giuliani held an ill-fated media availability at Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Pennsylvania to discuss challenges to the state’s ballot counting process. As Giuliani spread falsehoods, it became clear that the Trump campaign had booked the location thinking it was a Four Seasons hotel, and not a landscaping business.
Trump and Giuliani pose for photographs at the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster clubhouse after the 2016 election.
Giuliani’s conspiracy promotion caught up with him after he was sued by former Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss, whom he falsely implicated in a scheme to steal votes from Trump. Ultimately, Giuliani was ordered to pay the women nearly $150 million for defaming them.
He was also disbarred in New York and Washington, D.C., for his disgraceful promotion of election lies.
Giuliani was also part of a pro-Trump operation after the 2016 election, attempting to push Ukraine-related conspiracy theories. The idea was to cast aspersions on the investigation into Russia’s decision to aid Trump in that election against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
That conspiracy theory formed the foundation of Trump’s first impeachment after he used the office of the presidency to pressure Ukraine and enhance his political power.
Giuliani also promoted conspiracies about the COVID-19 virus at the height of the pandemic, including the promotion of phony medical remedies for the virus on his podcast.
As recently as last Christmas, Giuliani was using his infamy to promote his own personal brand of coffee in a series of cringeworthy internet videos.
Giuliani has demonstrated that, like Trump, he is a die-hard conspiracy theorist. He has invoked those conspiracies to defend Trump, throwing away whatever last vestiges he had of credibility following his time as mayor and a significantly influential figure within the Republican Party.
In receiving the Medal of Freedom, Giuliani joins racist misogynist Rush Limbaugh, who died in 2021, as another Trump sycophant who received an award for their service providing pro-Trump propaganda.
Giuliani has gone from “America’s Mayor” to a disgraced Trump-era punchline, and now he’s getting a prize for it all.
National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard blindsided the Central Intelligence Agency last week by naming an undercover officer on a list of 37 officials stripped of security clearances.
She posted the memo on Aug. 19 at the direction of President Donald Trump, sharing it on X with her more than 762,000 followers. The list targeted people who supported Trump’s first impeachment or worked on issues like Russian interference and foreign election meddling.
President Donald Trump stands with Tulsi Gabbard and her husband after she was sworn in as Director of National Intelligence on Feb. 12.
Among those listed was a senior CIA officer still working undercover—a detail Gabbard either didn’t know or didn’t care to confirm. According to The Wall Street Journal, Gabbard didn’t “meaningfully consult” the agency before going public, giving the CIA little warning and no chance to weigh in
Instead, her office sent the list to the agency the night before the release, practically making damage inevitable. According to people familiar with the matter, the CIA had no advance notice that Gabbard would post the names online, including that of a covert officer.
The blunder threatens to deepen tensions between the two top intelligence shops. Larry Pfeiffer, a former CIA chief of staff, told the Journal that any “smart” DNI would have cleared the move with the agency first.
“It could potentially put CIA cover procedures at risk. It could put relations with foreign governments at risk,” he said.
Others were even less diplomatic. Brian Fiarchil, a retired CIA operations officer, blasted Gabbard on X as a “Trump lapdog” who knows nothing about intelligence and “will do anything to stay” in the president’s good graces.
Notably, this dust-up was not the first between Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. In July, Gabbard declassified a report on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election that the CIA wanted more heavily redacted, arguing that it exposed sensitive sources and methods. But Gabbard ignored those concerns and did it anyway.
And now with a covert officer’s cover blown, the CIA is scrambling to contain the fallout while avoiding open war with Trump’s handpicked DNI.
National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard sits next to CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
“Director Ratcliffe and the President’s entire elite national security team are committed to eradicating the politicization of intelligence and are focused on executing President Trump’s national security priorities, and keeping the American people safe,” CIA spokesperson Liz Lyons said.
Gabbard has come a long way from her days as a Democratic representative from Hawaii, but her recent actions continue to land her in trouble. It’s part of a broader pattern for Gabbard: She’ll do whatever it takes to stay in Trump’s good graces—even if she hurts herself.
Trump was openly annoyed with her when they clashed over Iran’s nuclear program. Then, seemingly to win back his favor, she accused President Barack Obama of treason during the 2016 election, a move critics saw as an attempt to distract from the fallout over the administration’s refusal to release the Epstein files. The clearance memo seemed like more of the same—an exaggerated show of loyalty that instantly backfired.
In her Aug. 19 post, Gabbard claimed to be following Trump’s orders to revoke the clearances, framing it as a crackdown on officials who had politicized or leaked intelligence. Her spokesperson repeated that line to the Journal but, once again, offered no evidence that the affected officials had mishandled classified material.
“Gabbard directed the revocations to ensure individuals who have violated the trust placed in them by weaponizing, politicizing, manipulating, or leaking classified intelligence are no longer allowed to do so,” the spokesperson said.
The problem is that one of those officials was a seasoned CIA officer with more than 20 years of experience in intelligence, including a stint on the National Intelligence Council as an expert on Russia and Eurasia.
And there’s another wrinkle in Gabbard’s move: Revealing the identity of a covert officer is a felony. Though whether that law applies to a government official is somewhat murky.
Attorney Mark Zaid, who represents intelligence officers and lost his own clearance under Trump, suggested that Gabbard might have broken the law.
“Can you say ‘Privacy Act violation’? I certainly can. Further proof of weaponization and politicization,” he wrote on X. “The vast majority of these individuals are not household names & are dedicated public servants who have worked across multiple presidential administrations.”
Gabbard’s memo was meant to show loyalty to Trump. But instead, all she did was expose a covert officer and make herself look even more reckless.
In Donald Trump’s world, nothing says freedom like targeting art and museums.
In the wake of recent attacks on the Smithsonian’s choice to feature more than just straight, white artists, the White House has created a detailed list of artists it deems too woke.
“This is ‘art’ from the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery commemorating the act of illegally crossing the ‘exclusionary’ border,” a White House X account wrote alongside a painting by Rigoberto A. Gonzalez.
“This is what President Trump means when he says the Smithsonian is ‘OUT OF CONTROL.’”
The painting in question features a realistic depiction of a family of four at the southern border wall as a mother, holding a baby in her arms, scales a ladder.
But the White House didn’t stop there.
In this June 25, 2018 photo, visitors sit near a print by Mexican-American, Los Angeles-based artist Ken Gonzales-Day, who was exhibiting his 2006 series "Erased Lynchings" at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery in Washington, which shows a series of photographs of lynchings in which the victim has been digitally removed from the image.
In their attempt to drive home the right-wing talking point of how crazy and woke the Smithsonian truly is, officials created an entire webpage listing out each piece of art featured at the museum at one time or another that crossed some imaginary line.
The list, it appears, only includes artists who depict people of color or queer individuals. And predictably, the administration made it a point to bash artists who featured immigrants as well.
“A exhibit [sic] at the American History Museum depicts migrants watching Independence Day fireworks ‘through an opening in the U.S.-Mexico border wall’ and says America’s founders ‘feared non-White immigration,’” the White House wrote.
It seems as if the administration takes issue with the statement that the founders painted non-white immigrants in a negative light. Then again, the Trump regime labeled Venezuelan immigrants with no criminal record as dangerous gang members before throwing them into a foreign prison that’s notorious for torturing inmates.
The artwork’s description also points out how Latin American immigrants are often labeled as “invaders.” And with an administration and president insistent on calling them “illegal aliens” while making sweeping generalizations that immigrants coming from the southern border are murderers and rapists, the shoe sure does seem to fit.
But turn back the clock just a few years to Trump’s first term as president, and remember how his administration was pointing fingers at the left for participating in censorship and “cancel” culture.
As always, the projection is strong with Trump and company.
President Donald Trump has yanked the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials, an unprecedented move that has gutted parts of the intelligence community.
Since returning to the White House, Trump has wielded clearances as a political weapon, pulling them from perceived enemies, such as former President Joe Biden, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and other top Democrats. Now the purge has widened to career intelligence and some of the government’s most experienced analysts.
Several of those targeted had been involved in Russian interference or foreign election threats. And many had signed a 2019 letter warning that Trump’s dealings with Ukraine were serious enough to warrant impeachment proceedings. That letter resurfaced several weeks ago, when far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer posted it on X and demanded that “dozens of anti-Trump officials from the CIA and [National Security Council]” who signed it lose their clearances.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard speaks with reporters at the White House, on July 23.
Trump and his intelligence head, Tulsi Gabbard, delivered. Among those affected were Shelby Pierson, the official who warned Congress about Russia’s influence in 2020, as well as an undercover CIA analyst and Vinh X. Nguyen, a data scientist at the National Security Agency whose expertise in artificial intelligence had made him invaluable to the agency. Nguyen’s ouster stunned former colleagues, who warned his removal could set U.S. technology development back years.
The revocations are part of a broader campaign from Trump and Gabbard, echoing the president’s unfounded claims that intelligence agencies manipulated assessments about Russian interference in 2016. On Tuesday, Gabbard framed her actions as rooting out “politicization or weaponization of intelligence” but offered no evidence that the officials in question had mishandled classified material.
“Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right,” she wrote in a post on X, saying her actions followed Trump’s direction.
Critics say the opposite is true: The clearances themselves are being politicized. Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Democratic vice chair, blasted the effort as a smokescreen.
“Hey it’s a day ending in ‘Y’ so Tulsi Gabbard has launched yet another weird gambit to distract from the administration’s failure to release the Epstein files,” he wrote on social media. Warner also told The New York Times that he’s introducing legislation to establish clear standards for granting and revoking clearances.
But Trump and Gabbard aren't acting alone. Attorney General Pam Bondi has convened a task force to reexamine the 2016 intelligence review, while CIA Director John Ratcliffe has declassified internal reports and even referred former CIA Director John Brennan to the FBI for further investigation. Together, the moves amount to a wholesale attempt to rewrite the history of Russian election interference.
The practical effects are mixed. Some of the 37 may not have held active clearances or government contracts. For current officials, losing clearance means immediate dismissal. For former officials, it strips them of the ability to consult or advise—roles many still play.
However, the symbolism is clear. Trump has weaponized the clearance system to punish critics, a strategy that will chill dissent inside agencies already wary of contradicting the White House.
Even those caught up in the dragnet mocked the move. When Trump pulled James’ clearance earlier this year, she shot back: “What security clearance?”
“These are unlawful and unconstitutional decisions that deviate from well-settled, decades-old laws and policies that sought to protect against just this type of action,” Zaid said in a statement to The Associated Press and others, calling the current intelligence leadership “a grave danger to national security.”
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump confirmed that he is going to force changes at the Smithsonian museums in Washington, D.C., including removing exhibits that talk about the ills of slavery.
Trump made the comment in a Truth Social post, in which he said that changes to the museums are part of his war on "woke”—a term conservatives can’t even define but usually refers to their anger at anything that promotes equal rights for people of color, women, and the LGBTQ+ community.
"The Museums throughout Washington, but all over the Country are, essentially, the last remaining segment of 'WOKE.' The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is 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. We are not going to allow this to happen, and I have instructed my 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," Trump wrote. "This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE. We have the 'HOTTEST' Country in the World, and we want people to talk about it, including in our Museums."
“Whitewashing Black history” by Clay Bennett
Of course, slavery was objectively bad, and remains a stain in U.S. history. Millions of African Americans were enslaved in cruel conditions, finding themselves raped and beaten at the hands of the white slave owners who reaped the economic benefits of their indentured servants.
Indeed, the impact of slavery still hurts Black people in the U.S. today—with Black communities facing economic and educational inequities that trace back to slavery and Jim Crow segregation.
What's more, other parts of Trump's idiotic Truth Social post are also false, as Smithsonian museums absolutely do feature success stories. Not to mention, Trump's claim that the museums do not contain anything about the future is also absurd, as history museums by definition focus on history, which by definition is in the past.
Ultimately, Trump’s vow to be the arbiter of what is included in Smithsonian museums is the latest way Trump is trying to rewrite history—and make the entire country view America through his racist and egomaniacal lens.
Since his first term in office, Trump has tried to whitewash the United States’ history, including when in 2020 he announced that he was creating the 1776 Commission in order to make sure kids were not being taught that the United States is “an irredeemably and systemically racist country.” The 1776 Commission ended up releasing a report in January 2021, right before Trump was booted from office, that the American Historical Association said amounted to “a screed against a half-century of historical scholarship.”
After taking office again in 2025, Trump quickly went to work to whitewash history, including stripping mentions of diversity and equity from government websites, which led to irrational things like the removal of photos of the Enola Gay B-29 bomber because it contained the word “gay.” A Defense Department tribute to Jackie Robinson, an Army lieutenant who became the first Black man to play Major League Baseball, was also removed. Additionally, articles about the Navajo Code Talkers, who in World War II used their native language to create a code that the Nazis could not understand that helped the Allied forces communicate battle strategy, were removed from the Defense website.
Trump also signed an executive order that deemed books that tell the story of slavery to be filled with “corrosive ideology,” and ordered them removed from the Smithsonian Institution and the national park system. And the Smithsonian changed an exhibit on presidential impeachment to make Trump's two impeachments look less damning.
Trump during his first run for office declared that he “loves the poorly educated.” Now, he’s trying to ensure everyone in the U.S. is poorly educated, taught only his false and whitewashed view of history.
Over the last week, President Donald Trump has tried his best to make a spectacle of sending federal agents and the National Guard into Washington to combat a nonexistent crime surge. The act has been a clear attempt to shift focus away from both his administration’s ongoing cover-up of its files on accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, and the deterioration of the economy because of Trump’s tariff policies.
Violent crime in Washington hit a 30-year low last year, and that trend is continuing this year. However, Trump, a serial liar, has tried to counteract reality with conspiracy theories about crime statistics, and his conservative base is eating it up—but why?
Groundwork for crime narrative
In 2015 and 2016, as he pivoted from pushing the racist “birther” conspiracy theory about then-President Barack Obama and ran for president himself, Trump repeatedly claimed the country was in the middle of a dangerous crime surge, though the violent crime rate remained low. After he won the election, he used his inaugural address to speak about so-called “American carnage,” which he attributed in part to immigration—reinforcing the falsehood that Latino immigrants are mostly criminals.
Former President George W. Bush, right, and President Donald Trump, shown in 2018.
Trump’s demagoguery had deep roots in the Republican Party. Former President Ronald Reagan blamed societal ills on mythological welfare queens, and former President George W. Bush curtailed civil liberties and pushed for the invasion of Iraq based on fears of terrorist attacks from al-Qaida.
The conservative movement loves to connect fear of crime to rhetoric about racial minorities. It preys on deep-seated bigotry and motivates conservative voters to get out and vote, all as a way to stop the “other” from gaining control and allowing the spread of crime.
In more recent times, conservatives have circulated lies about the murder of Black teenager Trayvon Martin, and some right-wing circles have even celebrated his killer, George Zimmerman, as a hero. This resurfaced during Trump’s first term with the murder of George Floyd and the nationwide protests against police brutality that ensued. Instead of taking these organic expressions seriously, the right saw it as an affront to Trump and labeled even the most peaceful protests as riots blessed by top Democrats.
Trump loses to Biden, and the right doubles down on “crime”
After Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, he and the right were thrown off-balance. Reeling from this loss, he pushed for the violent attack on the government on Jan. 6, 2021, and then spent the next few years blaming Biden for a crime surge that began on his watch, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Trump, alongside his propaganda allies at Fox News, saw crime begin to decline under Biden but kept pushing the lie that it hadn’t. To do otherwise would have undermined years of attacks against Democrats and would be an acknowledgement that the right’s “tough on crime” approach had not worked.
Then-candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally in Colorado last October.
The right blamed this supposed crime wave on migrants, reinforcing the conservative movement’s nativist, racist message. And they used the narrative to reinforce a long-held conservative bias against cities, which the right has railed against for their successful progressive policies and their racial and cultural diversity.
Much of this doesn’t make logical sense. The facts do not align with putting crime, racial minorities, and liberal policies all in a pile together. It makes even less sense when we remember that Fox News is headquartered in New York City, the metropolis Trump himself is a product of.
But the right loves conspiracies, and it is far easier for them to argue that liberal policies celebrating ethnic unity also promote crime than it is for them to live in reality.
Trump pulls the trigger
Trump understands his core audience more than he understands anything else in the world, and while complex ideas are out of his grasp, he is fluent in the language of bigotry.
Insurrectionists loyal to Donald Trump storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
By invoking crime, particularly at a moment of political vulnerability, he understands that he is activating long-simmering conservative resentments. By raising the idea of a crime wave occurring in cities with large Black populations, the tensions raised within the MAGA movement about Epstein can be eased, at least temporarily.
This is why Trump can open prison cells and release Jan. 6 rioters who were tried and convicted, and also continue to proclaim that he is for “law and order.”
Right-wing lawmakers and media have sold conservative voters on a false narrative for so long that those voters truly believe Trump and his cohorts are fighting crime—even as they continue to cover up for an accused sex trafficker and pedophile.
Democratic leaders can bring tons of facts to conversations about crime, but most of the right is too far gone. They are too steeped in propaganda and paranoia to give reality a chance.
They were always going to believe the lies from Trump and the rest when it comes to crime. It was only a question of when it was going to happen.
Following her husband’s lead of threatening everyone with lawsuits, first lady Melania Trump is demanding that Hunter Biden retract his statement that accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump. If he doesn’t, she’s going to sue him for over $1 billion because she has suffered “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” over the comments.
What reputation does Melania Trump think she has, anyway?
Hunter Biden’s short response to her threat was “Fuck that!” which he delivered during an interview with YouTuber Andrew Callaghan. But Hunter’s longer response is even more hilarious:
“If they want to sit down for a deposition and clarify the nature of the relationship between Jeffery Epstein, if the president and the first lady want to do that … I'm more than happy to provide them the platform to be able to do it,” he said.
Per the BBC, Melania Trump’s threat was delivered by Alejandro Brito, who represents Trump in his lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Trump’s frivolous lawsuits against media companies.
But she’s got a few problems here as far as trying to extract a billion dollars—or even any dollars—from Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden.
First, she doesn’t have the juice the president does. Donald Trump can leverage things like government approval of mergers. Melania Trump has no such direct leverage. What’s she going to do? Not invite him to be a volunteer to help decorate the White House for Christmas? No doubt Hunter Biden would be very sad not to have the opportunity to stroll among the blood-red trees that she thinks scream “Christmas!”
I’m working … my ass off on the Christmas stuff, that you know, who gives a fuck about the Christmas stuff and decorations? But I need to do it, right? … Okay, and then I do it and I say that I’m working on Christmas and planning for the Christmas and they said, ‘Oh, what about the children that they were separated?’ Give me a fucking break.
Indeed, why should Melania Trump waste her beautiful mind worrying about the effects of her husband’s immigration policies? She has other important things to do! Maybe she could revive “Be Best”—her vague well-being campaign from Trump’s first term—and demand that Hunter “donate” the customary Trump bribe of $16 million to the effort.
These days, she is ostensibly keeping busy filming her Amazon documentary, focusing on her “day-to-day life, what I’m doing, what kind of responsibilities I have,” as she told “Fox & Friends” earlier this year. Honestly, it might be worth watching just to see what on earth she thinks are her responsibilities. Recall that the documentary is costing Amazon $40 million. Maybe she can threaten not to include Hunter in what is no doubt going to be a totally legit documentary and not just a payoff from Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to the president’s family.
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump arrive to view opening night of "Les Miserables" at the Kennedy Center on June 11.
Or maybe she could just write another book about how hard this all is for her and then have a robot read it.
Melania Trump may not have paid much attention to the endless defamation lawsuits that Trump has filed, but you’ll note that most do not reach the discovery stage, thanks to the whole payoff thing. Trump is still dodging being deposed in his own lawsuit against niece Mary Trump. That’s why Hunter’s comments are so perfect. Lawsuits require discovery and depositions, not just waving around a letter demanding $1 billion. And we know full well that both Melania and Donald Trump do not want to talk about Epstein.
The second problem for Melania Trump is that Hunter Biden is only repeating things that have been reported in the media. It’s tough to make a defamation claim stick in that event. This isn’t a situation where Hunter popped off with something no one had ever heard.
Finally, it’s not clear that she realizes that Hunter honestly doesn’t have anything more to lose. He’s been dragged through criminal cases, and the House won’t stop investigating him. He doesn’t have a billion dollars, so good luck getting that.
In other words, bring it on, Melania. All you’ve really done is tee up a lawsuit that would require the deposition of your husband about Jeffrey Epstein. Masterful gambit, ma’am.
The White House is reportedly launching a sweeping review of Smithsonian museums to make sure they align with President Donald Trump’s sanitized version of U.S. history.
The news comes via a bombshell Wall Street Journal report, which details the White House’s push ahead of America’s 250th anniversary, which will be celebrated on July 4, 2026. In a letter to Smithsonian secretary Lonnie Bunch, three senior White House officials demanded that the museums embody “unity, progress, and enduring values that define the American story” in line with Trump’s March executive order on “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”
Trump’s crusade to rewrite history will leave no stone unturned. The Journal reports that everything—from exhibition text and digital content to curatorial decisions, collection management, and artist funding—will be scrutinized.
The letter was signed by White House senior associate Lindsey Halligan, Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley, and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought. And it calls for replacing “divisive or ideologically driven” language with “unifying, historically accurate” materials.
“This is about preserving trust in one of our most cherished institutions,” Halligan told The Journal. “The Smithsonian museums and exhibits should be accurate, patriotic, and enlightening—ensuring they remain places of learning, wonder, and national pride for generations to come.”
People wait in line to enter the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, in Washington, in 2017.
But this is a hard sell given Trump’s track record. His administration has aggressively purged diversity, equity, and inclusion content from federal websites, erasing mentions of Navajo Code Talkers from the Defense Department’s websites, and deleting tributes to Black, Hispanic, and female service members from the Arlington Cemetery website.
The White House’s latest Smithsonian effort takes place amid other recent controversies at the storied museum. In July, the museum removed a temporary installation referencing Trump’s two impeachments from an exhibit that also displayed artifacts related to the impeachments (or resignations) of former Presidents Bill Clinton, Andrew Johnson, and Richard Nixon. After facing public condemnation, the placards were restored, though with softened text and a less prominent placement.
And this is all part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to reshape history. Last week, the National Park Service announced it would reinstall a statue of Confederate General Albert Pike in Washington, D.C.—a man who advocated expelling free Black people from Arkansas—after protesters toppled it in 2020. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissed monument removals as the work of “woke lemmings.”
The Journal reports the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents has agreed to a full review of its museums and zoo to root out supposed political bias. But Trump’s executive order accuses the institution of pushing a “divisive, race-centered ideology” that paints American and Western values as harmful. Vice President JD Vance, a board member, has been tasked with helping block funding for exhibitions that clash with Trump’s racist agenda.
The White House’s Smithsonian review will focus on eight museums in D.C., including the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of the American Indian, and the National Portrait Gallery. In other words, expect more women and people of color to be targeted.
The process is slated to wrap up in early 2026, just in time for Trump to claim victory over “wokeness” during the anniversary celebrations.
It’s a stark example of how far Trump and his allies will go to purge anything remotely inclusive from America’s cultural memory. But this isn’t about “restoring truth”—he wants to rewrite it altogether.
A prominent right-wing super PAC is begging its donors to help prop up Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn's Senate bid, saying that if he is not the nominee, the seat could flip to Democrats next November, Punchbowl News reported.
According to a slide presentation from the Senate Leadership Fund—a super PAC tied to outgoing Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky—Cornyn is currently losing to scandal-plagued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton by an average of 17 percentage points.
In the presentation, SLF noted that it may need as much as $70 million to help Cornyn survive the primary. They view this as a necessary expenditure as they fear Paxton could lose a general election to a Democrat.
According to one slide in the deck, SLF presented polling showing Cornyn leads Democratic Senate candidate Collin Allred by 6 points in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup, while Paxton trails Allred by 1 point. What’s more, SLF said that if Cornyn loses the primary to Paxton, Republicans could need to spend as much as $250 million to prop up Paxton in a general election matchup.
Texas has been reliably Republican in presidential years, and no Democrat has won a Senate seat in the state since 1988. However, in a midterm with President Donald Trump in office, the seat could prove more competitive.
Back in 2018—Trump's first midterm year—Republicans barely held on to Texas' Senate seat, with Republican Ted Cruz defeating Democrat Beto O'Rourke by just over 2 points.
Paxton would be as much of a liability for Republicans as loathsome Cruz—or more.
Texas Sens. John Cornyn, left, and Ted Cruz pose for pictures in 2019 near Sarita, Texas.
And in July, Paxton's wife—state Sen. Angela Paxton—filed for divorce from Paxton, accusing him of adultery.
However, while those abhorrent actions would be a liability in a general election, Republican primary voters—who love Trump, a notorious adulterer and corrupt leader—are not as repelled by Paxton’s behavior.
Indeed, SLF said in their slide presentation that Cornyn is losing because GOP primary voters view Paxton as more conservative.
Seeking to change his grim odds in the race, Cornyn has been desperate for Trump to weigh in on the race. Cornyn told Fox News in July that he has spoken to Trump about a prospective endorsement, saying that would guarantee him a primary win.
