“Impossible”: Smithsonian Employees Warn Trump’s Plan Will Cause Chaos

The Trump administration’s heavy-handed revision of U.S. history has put fear into Smithsonian employees, eliciting comparisons among staffers to 1930s Germany. 

Workers at the government-created museums are censoring historical content that they believe could upset the president. Tensions have gotten so high that staffers have been warned against putting any complaints about the current climate at the institution in writing, while volunteers are considering quitting, HuffPost reported Thursday.

On Tuesday, White House officials laid out detailed plans to eliminate exhibits that they determined represented “improper ideology,” sparking alarm and panic among staffers. The memo challenged the application of educational lenses on race, gender, and oppression in U.S. history and accused the Smithsonian directly of advancing a “divisive, race-centered ideology.” 

The administration’s critiques also veered toward eugenics, torching a specific Smithsonian exhibit for describing race as “not a biological reality but a social construct” and underscoring that “race is a human invention.”

But the memo wasn’t a suggestion: failure to comply will turn the faucet off on funding for the world’s largest educational institution, effectively crippling the Smithsonian and nixing two-thirds of the organization’s revenue.

“Everyone is so scared,” one longtime Smithsonian worker told HuffPost.

“It’s an impossible position to put us in,” they continued. “We can’t be political with our content, but they have politicized everything. We need to prove we’re not partisan by following this very partisan directive. What are we supposed to do? It’s like up is down. It’s maddening.”

Employees have quietly conceded to the White House’s demands in an effort to save Smithsonian head Lonnie Bunch from losing his job. Staffers described Bunch as “loved” and “respected.” But kowtowing to Donald Trump has not yet proved to be a winning strategy for the Smithsonian.

Earlier this month, the Smithsonian removed Trump from its exhibit on impeachments, under direct pressure from the White House. That left the exhibit focusing on Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton, effectively returning the exhibit to the way it looked in 2008. The “American Presidency” wing’s revised signage explained that “only three presidents have seriously faced removal” over the course of American history.  The change was the result of a White House–initiated content review in the wake of an art director’s ousting.

The Smithsonian has since re-added Trump to the impeachment exhibit, but with some changes to how the proceedings against him are described.

Donald Trump was caught once again moving the goal posts for Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of their summit in Alaska Friday.

During an interview on Fox News Radio Thursday, Trump bragged that his “relationship” with Putin had been the deciding factor in the autocrat’s pending decision to resolve his country’s invasion of Ukraine. But the U.S. president didn’t sound all that certain.

“Because of a certain relationship that he has with me running this country, he’s, he really, I believe now he’s convinced that he’s going to make a deal. He’s gonna make a deal—I think he’s going to, and we’re gonna find out,” Trump said.

“The second meeting is going to be very, very important. This meeting sets up—like a chess game—this meeting sets up the second meeting. But there is a 25 percent chance that this meeting will not be a successful meeting.”

Trump has repeatedly downplayed the historic contact between the two superpowers, a move that has frustrated European leaders. In an explosive phone call Wednesday, European leaders claimed Trump was leveraging his time with Putin to coordinate a ceasefire in Ukraine without Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s input, and pressed Trump on the significance of offering a meeting to Putin.

Ahead of the meeting, Putin praised Trump for making “quite vigorous and sincere efforts” toward ending the conflict in Ukraine and “to create long-term conditions of peace between our countries and in Europe, and in the world as a whole.”

A fake story from a Brazilian fugitive accusing former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr of colluding with Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis and Armstrong Williams to indict President Trump swept through MAGA world this summer. 

How did a lie from a Brazilian woman being actively pursued by the FBI dominate the right’s media landscape and turn them against a longtime Trump ally? The Bulwark reports that it originated from Patrícia Lélis, a woman who was indicted last year in a wire fraud case after stealing around $700,000 and using it for her house’s down payment and credit card bill, among other things. She fled the country before serving any time and was last seen in Mexico.  

In Brazil, Lélis is infamous for a false rape accusation against Brazilian pastor and politician Marco Feliciano, which led to her being arrested, with Brazilian law enforcement ultimately releasing a report that claimed she had a mental condition that caused her to lie impulsively. In 2021, she claimed that then-President Jair Bolsonaro’s son Eduardo threatened to kill her over text. Police determined she forged the messages and arrested her instead once again. She was kicked out of the Brazilian Workers’ Party for being extremely transphobic, and even made posts falsely claiming she was pregnant. 

Lélis is essentially a professional international charlatan. How did she become the point person for the accusations of treason against Barr? 

It’s all Armstrong Williams’s fault. The Black conservative talking head hired Lélis without verifying anything about her background or history, as she claimed to be an immigration lawyer to get the job with Williams. She worked for him for two years, 2021 to 2023, stealing money from his organization in the process.  

Lélis concocted a story based on her time working for Armstrong, in which she alleges that, while sitting in as a notetaker during meetings, she witnessed Armstrong, Barr, and Willis coordinating Trump’s prosecutions, which doesn’t make much sense given that Barr was not attorney general while Lélis was working for Armstrong. 

None of the conservative pundits who took up Lélis’s story seemed to care. And neither did Project Veritas, which featured Lélis multiple times as a brave whistleblower whose life was in danger as Barr was trying to silence her.  

“One thing that I understood very well is like Bill Barr and Armstrong and all the politicians too, they’re very focused like in how they go to stop Trump,” Lélis said in a Project Veritas article. 

Brazilians tried to warn Project Veritas. Now no one knows where Lélis is. Let this be  a lesson to at least google someone before you platform their allegations of plots against the president.

Not all House Republicans are so keen on Donald Trump’s latest play to keep control of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections.

House GOP leadership have reportedly advised rank-and-file party members to keep their concerns about Trump’s blatant mid-decade gerrymandering scheme in Texas to themselves, Politico reported Tuesday.

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Republican leadership won’t put any bill on the floor that would contradict the Trump-driven efforts, despite some urging from party members, two people with direct knowledge of the matter told Politico. Johnson has publicly said that redistricting should be left up to the states.

But some Republican lawmakers, particularly those from blue states, have been more open about their distaste for Trump’s gerrymandering scheme.

New York Representative Mike Lawler, a swing-district Republican, said earlier this month that Trump’s redistricting campaign in Texas was “wrong,” and that gerrymandering needed to be banned altogether. Another New York Republican, Nicole Malliotakis, said that she was “not somebody who’s supportive of any type of gerrymandering.”

California Representative Doug LaMalfa warned that redistricting in Texas would “start a grass fire across the country.” Republicans in vulnerable seats should be concerned that redistricting elsewhere could come back to bite them, as voters attempt to even the score.

California-based GOP strategist Rob Stutzman told Politico that among vulnerable Republicans, there was a “growing private sentiment of ‘is this really worth it?’”

Other Republicans appeared reluctant to get on board with redrawing the maps at this particular moment. House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris warned that Republicans should “shy away from mid-cycle redistricting,” and Florida’s newest Representative Randy Fine questioned whether it was even legal to redraw the maps in the Sunshine State (it’s not).

The world stage is not happy with Donald Trump.

European leaders reportedly torched the U.S. president during a virtual call ahead of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Friday trip to Alaska, two sources familiar with the call told Axios.

Trump downplayed the historic contact between the two superpowers as a “feel-out” meeting, though the Europeans disagreed, claiming in the Wednesday call that Trump was leveraging his time with Putin to coordinate a ceasefire arrangement in Ukraine without that country’s leader, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, at the negotiating table.

The call lasted for more than an hour and featured several snipes at Trump from French President Emmanuel Macron, who took a “very tough” position on the meeting, according to a source on the call that spoke with Axios. Macron emphasized that “a meeting is a very big thing to give to Putin.” But Trump “didn’t like that,” the source said.

Zelenskiy offered his own blunt warning to Trump, underscoring to the U.S. leader that “Putin cannot be trusted.”

Polish President Karol Nawrocki “reminded Trump of the Battle of Warsaw, exactly 105 years ago, when Poland fought together with Ukrainians against the Bolsheviks in Russia,” reported Axios.

Putin’s visit will be the first time that the Russian leader has stepped foot on U.S. soil in more than a decade—but what sort of new ground Trump will be able to gain is not clear. Putin has remained adamant that any peace deal would require “international legal recognition” of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, an internationally recognized portion of Ukraine, along with four regions it has claimed in the three years since it first invaded Ukraine.

After the call with Trump, Zelenskiy appeared alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, telling reporters in Berlin that the world needed to put more “pressure” on Russia. Zelenskiy said that he believed Russia was bluffing about the regional economic impact of more international sanctions.

At the same press conference, Merz claimed that Trump had “largely agreed” that Russia could not be granted legal recognition of the territories it had claimed during the war.

When pressed by reporters during a press conference later Wednesday as to whether he believed that he could use the meeting to convince Putin to stop targeting civilians in Ukraine, Trump responded in the negative.

“I guess the answer to that is no,” he said, “because I’ve had this conversation [with Putin].”