US museum removes Trump's name from impeachment exhibit
The museum in Washington DC made the change as part of a review that it agreed to undertake following White House pressure to remove an art museum director, the Washington Post, which first reported the removal on Thursday, cited a source as saying.
A spokesperson in a statement said "a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments".
Trump signed an executive order in March calling for "improper, divisive or anti-American ideology" to be removed from the Smithsonian - the vast museum and research institution that is a premier exhibition space for US history and culture.
The order raised concern of political interference at the institution as well as fear that his administration is undoing decades of social progress and undermining the acknowledgment of critical phases of American history.
"In September 2021, the museum installed a temporary label on content concerning the impeachments of Donald J. Trump. It was intended to be a short-term measure to address current events at the time, however, the label remained in place until July 2025," the spokesperson said in an email.
The Washington Post reported the exhibit now notes that "only three presidents have seriously faced removal."
The temporary label - which read "Case under redesign (history happens)" - also offered information about the impeachments of former presidents Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998, as well as Richard Nixon, who would have faced impeachment had he not resigned in 1974, the newspaper reported, citing a photograph of the label.
The spokesperson said that after a content review, the Smithsonian decided to restore the exhibit to how it looked in 2008.
The Smithsonian receives most of its budget from the US Congress but is independent of the government in decision-making.
In June, Kim Sajet stepped down as director of the National Portrait Gallery, which is part of the Smithsonian, after criticism from Trump.
In Trump's first term in office from 2017 to 2021, he became the first president to be impeached twice - the first time over a request that Ukraine investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and the second over the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters.
The three presidents impeached - or charged with misconduct - by the House of Representatives were acquitted by the Senate.
The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History has removed explicit reference to US President Donald Trump from an exhibit about impeachment.
The museum in Washington DC made the change as part of a review that it agreed to undertake following White House pressure to remove an art museum director, the Washington Post, which first reported the removal on Thursday, cited a source as saying.
A spokesperson in a statement said "a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments".
Trump signed an executive order in March calling for "improper, divisive or anti-American ideology" to be removed from the Smithsonian - the vast museum and research institution that is a premier exhibition space for US history and culture.
The order raised concern of political interference at the institution as well as fear that his administration is undoing decades of social progress and undermining the acknowledgment of critical phases of American history.
"In September 2021, the museum installed a temporary label on content concerning the impeachments of Donald J. Trump. It was intended to be a short-term measure to address current events at the time, however, the label remained in place until July 2025," the spokesperson said in an email.
The Washington Post reported the exhibit now notes that "only three presidents have seriously faced removal."
The temporary label - which read "Case under redesign (history happens)" - also offered information about the impeachments of former presidents Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998, as well as Richard Nixon, who would have faced impeachment had he not resigned in 1974, the newspaper reported, citing a photograph of the label.
The spokesperson said that after a content review, the Smithsonian decided to restore the exhibit to how it looked in 2008.
The Smithsonian receives most of its budget from the US Congress but is independent of the government in decision-making.
In June, Kim Sajet stepped down as director of the National Portrait Gallery, which is part of the Smithsonian, after criticism from Trump.
In Trump's first term in office from 2017 to 2021, he became the first president to be impeached twice - the first time over a request that Ukraine investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and the second over the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters.
The three presidents impeached - or charged with misconduct - by the House of Representatives were acquitted by the Senate.
The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History has removed explicit reference to US President Donald Trump from an exhibit about impeachment.
The museum in Washington DC made the change as part of a review that it agreed to undertake following White House pressure to remove an art museum director, the Washington Post, which first reported the removal on Thursday, cited a source as saying.
A spokesperson in a statement said "a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments".
Trump signed an executive order in March calling for "improper, divisive or anti-American ideology" to be removed from the Smithsonian - the vast museum and research institution that is a premier exhibition space for US history and culture.
The order raised concern of political interference at the institution as well as fear that his administration is undoing decades of social progress and undermining the acknowledgment of critical phases of American history.
"In September 2021, the museum installed a temporary label on content concerning the impeachments of Donald J. Trump. It was intended to be a short-term measure to address current events at the time, however, the label remained in place until July 2025," the spokesperson said in an email.
The Washington Post reported the exhibit now notes that "only three presidents have seriously faced removal."
The temporary label - which read "Case under redesign (history happens)" - also offered information about the impeachments of former presidents Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998, as well as Richard Nixon, who would have faced impeachment had he not resigned in 1974, the newspaper reported, citing a photograph of the label.
The spokesperson said that after a content review, the Smithsonian decided to restore the exhibit to how it looked in 2008.
The Smithsonian receives most of its budget from the US Congress but is independent of the government in decision-making.
In June, Kim Sajet stepped down as director of the National Portrait Gallery, which is part of the Smithsonian, after criticism from Trump.
In Trump's first term in office from 2017 to 2021, he became the first president to be impeached twice - the first time over a request that Ukraine investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and the second over the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters.
The three presidents impeached - or charged with misconduct - by the House of Representatives were acquitted by the Senate.
The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History has removed explicit reference to US President Donald Trump from an exhibit about impeachment.
The museum in Washington DC made the change as part of a review that it agreed to undertake following White House pressure to remove an art museum director, the Washington Post, which first reported the removal on Thursday, cited a source as saying.
A spokesperson in a statement said "a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments".
Trump signed an executive order in March calling for "improper, divisive or anti-American ideology" to be removed from the Smithsonian - the vast museum and research institution that is a premier exhibition space for US history and culture.
The order raised concern of political interference at the institution as well as fear that his administration is undoing decades of social progress and undermining the acknowledgment of critical phases of American history.
"In September 2021, the museum installed a temporary label on content concerning the impeachments of Donald J. Trump. It was intended to be a short-term measure to address current events at the time, however, the label remained in place until July 2025," the spokesperson said in an email.
The Washington Post reported the exhibit now notes that "only three presidents have seriously faced removal."
The temporary label - which read "Case under redesign (history happens)" - also offered information about the impeachments of former presidents Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998, as well as Richard Nixon, who would have faced impeachment had he not resigned in 1974, the newspaper reported, citing a photograph of the label.
The spokesperson said that after a content review, the Smithsonian decided to restore the exhibit to how it looked in 2008.
The Smithsonian receives most of its budget from the US Congress but is independent of the government in decision-making.
In June, Kim Sajet stepped down as director of the National Portrait Gallery, which is part of the Smithsonian, after criticism from Trump.
In Trump's first term in office from 2017 to 2021, he became the first president to be impeached twice - the first time over a request that Ukraine investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and the second over the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters.
The three presidents impeached - or charged with misconduct - by the House of Representatives were acquitted by the Senate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
18 minutes ago
- ABC News
Former Human Rights Watch chief Kenneth Roth says only Donald Trump can stop Benjamin Netanyahu and war in Gaza
The former executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, says the one man who can hold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to account and put an end to the war in Gaza is US President Donald Trump. His comments echoed those of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who last week called for Mr Trump to show real leadership on the ongoing war in Gaza. During an interview tonight on 7.30, Mr Roth — who is Jewish and the son of a Holocaust survivor — said world leaders must do more than voice outrage at the ongoing situation in Gaza. "There's increasing movement towards sanctioning Israeli officials who are responsible," Mr Roth told 7.30. "There's increasing legitimacy of the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court, but frankly, the one person with leverage over Netanyahu is Trump. "He alone could condition arms sales and military aid to end the mass atrocity being committed in Gaza. "I don't think it's impossible to push Trump to do that. He is breaking with Netanyahu in various ways. He's spoken about that he's not yet at that stage, but it's possible to get him there. "That's what it's going to take to end these war crimes." Mr Roth's comments came after 90,000 protesters walked across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on Sunday, calling for an end to Israel's war in Gaza. Mr Roth said public opinion might be enough to force the hand of a populist leader like Donald Trump. "Trump is not indifferent to public opinion," Mr Roth said. Reasons for the shift include images of starving and emaciated children in Gaza being broadcast around the world, while the Israeli government issued multiple denials on the issue. The allegations of using starvation as a weapon of war have formed part of charges brought against Mr Netanyahu and former minister of defence Yoav Gallant by the International Criminal Court. Mr Roth, who is also a qualified lawyer, said he believed that nothing would see those charges rescinded. "Those are blatant war crimes," Mr Roth told 7.30. "They violate the Geneva Convention requirement that an occupying power allow access to humanitarian aid to a people in need. "That defines Gaza. "The fact that Netanyahu committed this crime … that he stops is not a defence to the months upon months in which he was committing the crime. Mr Roth believed the establishment of a Palestinian state would face obstacles, such as Hamas, past failures of the Palestinian Authority and Mr Netanyahu's unwillingness to see it happen. But he said the United States could play a major role in removing those obstacles. "Hamas has said that it would contemplate disarming and leaving Gaza if there were a clear path to a Palestinian state," Mr Roth said. "If we accept that as a negotiating position, then the main obstacle is Netanyahu, who basically has said, 'over my dead body, there's not going to be a Palestinian state.' "The only way to get past that comes back to President Trump. "It comes back to his enormous leverage. The $3.8 billion in annual aid he gives to Israel and massive flow of arms; if he were to say this only continues if you allow the Palestinian state, that allows us to stop the slaughter in Gaza, things like this can happen." Mr Roth told 7.30 he considered antisemitism "a real issue" for him and a real "hazard" for Jewish people, but criticised Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, for selecting a controversial definition of antisemitism to base her work on. In her recently released report, Ms Segal urged the Australian government to "require consistent application and adoption" of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, calling it the "gold standard" in an interview with 7.30. Critics, including the definition's lead author, say it is being used to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel's policies. Mr Roth agreed. "This is a completely counterproductive approach to fighting antisemitism," he told 7.30. "The IHRA definition undermines the fight against antisemitism because it has come to be used over and over as an excuse to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel." The risk in the reliance on the IHRA definition, Mr Roth said, was to undermine the fight against antisemitism. "It cheapens the concept of antisemitism when it's very much needed. It basically prioritises defence of the Israeli government over the defence of Jews around the world," he said. "I have no problem with having a special envoy focused on fighting antisemitism, but if that envoy is really pushing a definition of antisemitism that amounts to defending and stopping criticism of Israel, that is counterproductive. "That is unhelpful for what Jews need to combat a genuine problem." Watch 7.30, Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV Do you know more about this story? Get in touch with 7.30 here.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Investigation launched into Obama officials over Russia 2016 election collusion hoax
Sky News host Andrew Bolt discusses the US grand jury investigation being launched into officials of former United States president Barack Obama to find out the 'conspiracy theory' of Russian collusion in the 2016 election. 'We might finally now get to the truth about what our ABC once boasted was the story of the century … but it a truth very different to what the ABC and journalists around the world were claiming, they told us Donald Trump stole the first election that made him president by colluding with Russia,' Mr Bolt said. 'The overwhelming evidence since is that Trump never did collude with Russia, those discredited claims were largely based on a dossier of fake intelligence secretly funded by the campaign of Trump's Democrat opponent, Hillary Clinton.'
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Why people like me are taking to the streets
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@ Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published. PROTESTS There have been questions raised about why people take part in peaceful mass demonstrations (Letters, 5/8). I believe I can give the prime reason. We live large distances away from many of the world's humanitarian problems, but we feel an emotional connection to the people who are suffering in those places. We can't personally express our feelings to them and their rulers, or undertake any meaningful action to help the victims, but we can join together and share our feelings with other concerned, like-minded people here. It is beneficial to us to know that we are not alone in our feelings, whether of anger or grief or anything else, and in so doing feel a sense of solidarity with the far-away victims. Many people will not or cannot write letters to, or phone, our politicians asking them to take action on our behalf, but large gatherings of people are a visible sign to them of how widespread our feelings are. I remember how uplifting an anti-Vietnam march was in helping me feel that there were many others who wanted the pointless killing and destruction to stop. It was a comfort to me. That's reason enough to encourage demonstrations rather than try and forbid them or meet them with police force. That's not what our police should be doing. Don Jordan, Mt Waverley Who will rescue the children? Who is to judge the so-called 'self-righteous anger of Melbourne keffiyeh-wearing performative protesters' (Letters, 4/8)? I was there at Sunday's protest, as I have been before. My feeling was not self-righteous anger, nor righteous anger. It was not anger at all, but sorrow. For the first time I wore a keffiyeh. It was not performance. It was an expression of sympathy with suffering Palestinians. As a Quaker and a pacifist, I would much prefer the protest was in silence for that would reflect the profound sorrow I feel for the lives being lost in Gaza due to starvation, and people being slaughtered as they desperately seek food. In 1939 British Quakers were instrumental in rescuing 10,000 German and Austrian Jewish children in the 'kindertransport' trains that took them to the UK. Who will rescue the Palestinian children now? Dorothy Scott, Macclesfield Symbol of a nation insulted After the burning of the Australian flag at a pro-Palestinian rally it is about time that protests that are disrespectful and disruptive to our citizens be required to meet standards – or else be stopped. Media condemnation is not adequate as a control and deterrent, it probably fuels their actions. This has nothing to do with the freedom to protest – this is about the fabric of and wellbeing of our society. There are laws that restrict what we can say and can do in a social context, added to these are a wide range of subjects that have established standards/norms of acceptable behaviour in Australia. For example, defamation is illegal and we are developing a stronger attitude and community response to domestic violence. Burning our national flag is an abhorrent action. Will they now burn the flag of our Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders? How do our war veterans and servicemen and women feel when the flag they fought for and stand for is desecrated? Ross Kroger, Barwon Heads Act of shame Unsurprisingly, the cowards burning the Australian flag on the King St Bridge wore masks to hide their identities. They should go live in maybe Iran, Iraq or Syria and see if they feel more comfortable with those countries' flags. Geoff Lipton, Caulfield North Widen support for action Noting the worldwide impetus to urgently end the Gaza war and to establish a Palestinian state, could the pro-Palestine demonstrators consider tweaking the chant from 'Free free Palestine' to maybe 'Two state solution now.' This may assist in increasing more widespread support. And help disarm opposition that now is not the time to recognise a Palestinian state. Carlo Ursida, Kensington THE FORUM Shift the spending Australia is currently looking at investing more than $368 billion into AUKUS to join forces with the US and UK against a prospective battle with China that we do not seek. At the same time we are facing an existential climate crisis, and yet the US has defunded much of its climate forecasting infrastructure (' Trump cuts cast a cloud over Australian forecasting ', 5/8). Surely now is the time for Australia to withdraw from AUKUS, and use the funds saved to provide ourselves (and the world) with detailed, reliable weather information that will identify and track our growing climate risks, and enable us to foresee and protect against the floods, cyclones and droughts which will inevitably intensify over coming years? Chris Young, Surrey Hills
