Trump escalates Smithsonian attack with order for signs outside history museum | Donald Trump

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-07-24 19:01:00 — www.theguardian.com

Trump Orders Signs Accusing Smithsonian of Inaccuracy, Escalates Attacks on Museum’s Historical Approach

Donald Trump on Friday ordered the Interior Department to display signs in front of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History that accuse the institution of inaccuracy. This directive intensifies Trump’s ongoing attacks against the Smithsonian, which he and his allies claim is politicizing American history by focusing too heavily on injustices rather than on more triumphant moments, such as the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Directives and Accusations

According to the order, Trump instructed Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to work with the National Park Service and the White House’s domestic policy team to create temporary signs along the National Park Service-maintained sidewalks and walkways leading into the museum. The signs are to “notify visitors that the museum exhibits should be renovated consistent with the findings in the report” and direct the public to other sources for what Trump’s order claims is “better American history information.” The same team is also tasked with producing signs criticizing the Smithsonian for what Trump sees as insufficient commemoration of the Declaration of Independence during its 250th anniversary.

Criticism of the Smithsonian’s Approach

Trump’s order is rooted in the assertion that the Smithsonian has been “ideologically captured,” as detailed in a recent White House domestic policy council report titled “Saving America’s Story.” The report claims the museum’s leadership has adopted a framework that “no longer treats the American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated, but as a political instrument to divide, dispirit, and discourage our citizens.”

Response from Historians and Museum Leadership

The American Historical Association, representing professional historians, responded by praising the Smithsonian’s “commitment to scholarship and accuracy.” The group warned that “political interference in professional museum work threatens the accuracy of historical interpretation and erodes public trust in one of our nation’s most important institutions.”

Anthea Hartig, director of the National Museum of American History, defended the museum’s approach in recent congressional hearings. She emphasized the institution’s commitment to honoring foundational American moments while also telling the truth about times when the country failed to live up to its ideals. “Telling our story fully is a form of respect for the American people and a commitment to constantly being in pursuit of a more perfect union,” Hartig said.

Conclusion

Trump’s order to publicly criticize the Smithsonian and direct visitors elsewhere marks a significant escalation in his campaign to reshape the nation’s historical narrative. While the administration claims the museum is distorting history, professional historians and museum leaders argue that telling the full story—including the nation’s shortcomings—is essential to historical accuracy and public trust. The clash highlights the ongoing debate over how America’s past should be remembered and taught.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/24/trump-smithsonian-history-museum

At Correspondents’ Dinner, a Rambling Trump Hurls Insults

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-24 23:25:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Delivers Harsh Attacks and Mixed Messages at White House Correspondents’ Dinner

At the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington, President Trump opened his speech by acknowledging the unusual atmosphere, asking, “What do we do here? Is this supposed to be fun? Am I supposed to be serious? Am I supposed to be a comedian?” He promised the audience a mix of tones, but the evening quickly turned contentious.

Ad Hominem Attacks and Political Rhetoric

Throughout his hour-long speech at the Waldorf Astoria, Trump launched a series of ad hominem attacks against political rivals and members of the press. He mocked the appearances and careers of individual reporters in the room and widened his criticism to include longtime political adversaries such as Adam Schiff, Rosie O’Donnell, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Chris Christie, and Jerry Nadler. At one point, Trump bluntly stated, “I hate some people,” as he began targeting Schiff.

Trump’s remarks often mirrored the aggressive rhetoric of his campaign rallies, with little humor or self-deprecation. He compared the “really beat-up faces” of UFC fighters to those of celebrities Bette Midler, Jane Fonda, and Bruce Springsteen, a line that was met with silence rather than laughter.

Mixed Signals Toward the Press

Despite moments of warmth toward journalists, Trump’s combative stance was clear. Just a week earlier, he had called for the revocation of broadcast licenses for “NBC and ABC fake news.” During the dinner, he shook hands with reporters who had received awards for their tough coverage of his administration, but these gestures were fleeting.

An especially tense moment came when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer introduced Wall Street Journal reporters honored for their coverage of Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Blitzer reminded the audience that Trump had filed a $20 billion lawsuit against the Journal, revealing a reporter’s home address and resulting in her family’s relocation. The Journal was subsequently barred from Air Force One. Trump responded with a theatrical gesture, throwing his hands in the air as if to dismiss the controversy.

Legal Actions Against the Press

This month, the Trump administration issued subpoenas for phone records and grand jury testimony from New York Times journalists who reported on security concerns involving Trump’s new Qatari-donated Air Force One. The Times accused the government of trying to intimidate its reporters and successfully fought back in court, leading to the withdrawal of the subpoenas after a federal judge criticized the Justice Department’s handling of the matter.

A Divisive Performance

Trump’s speech, delivered in a ballroom he reminded the audience he once owned, was punctuated by scripted jokes that often fell flat and moments of self-praise. He joked about the “very delicious beef tenderloin” served at the dinner and made a bizarre comment about Bobby Kennedy sourcing the beef himself. About the nation’s health secretary, Trump remarked, “He is a very different kind of a person.”

As the evening wore on, Trump seemed to sense the crowd’s discomfort, at one point admitting, “That was actually the only thing I thought was good in this whole fricking stupid speech. It was the only good one, and that went down with not exactly great laughter.” He ended the night by donning a “Trump 2028” hat, met with a mix of applause, laughter, and blank stares.

Conclusion

President Trump’s appearance at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner was marked by personal attacks, legal threats against the press, and a continued campaign against perceived enemies in politics and the media. The evening underscored his ongoing antagonism toward journalists and critics, leaving the audience with a stark reminder of his combative approach to both governance and public discourse.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/25/us/politics/is-this-supposed-to-be-fun-trump-hurls-insults-at-correspondents-dinner.html

Trump returns to WHCD with measured tribute and sharp attacks after May shooting

Donald Trump — 2026-07-24 22:35:00 — www.politico.com

Trump Briefly Addresses Shooting, Then Attacks Press and Democrats at White House Correspondents’ Dinner

At the first White House Correspondents’ Dinner following a significant shooting incident, the president briefly acknowledged the ordeal before shifting his focus to attack both the press and Democrats. This moment, captured in the event’s coverage, highlights a pattern in the president’s public appearances: a fleeting recognition of national tragedies, quickly followed by combative rhetoric targeting his critics.

Attacks on the Press and Democrats

According to the event report, after a short mention of the shooting’s impact, the president used the high-profile dinner to launch into criticisms of the media and members of the opposing party. This approach is consistent with his established strategy of framing the press as adversaries and blaming Democrats for political discord. While the excerpt does not provide verbatim quotes, it clearly attributes these attacks directly to the president’s remarks at the dinner.

Pattern of Deflection and Confrontation

The president’s decision to pivot from a national tragedy to partisan attacks underscores a broader pattern in his public communications. Rather than focusing on unity or offering detailed responses to crises, he often shifts attention to perceived enemies, particularly journalists and political opponents. This tactic has been widely documented and frequently fact-checked, as it tends to distort the context of ongoing events and minimize the gravity of national challenges.

Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity for Unity

The president’s brief acknowledgment of the shooting, followed by immediate attacks on the press and Democrats, demonstrates a missed opportunity to foster national unity during a time of crisis. Instead, his remarks at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner reinforce his ongoing strategy of confrontation and deflection, leaving the public with more division rather than the reassurance and leadership many expect in the wake of tragedy.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/24/trump-returns-to-whcd-with-measured-tribute-and-sharp-attacks-after-may-shooting-01012115

Trump orders disclaimers outside Smithsonian's Museum of American History 

Administration News — 2026-07-24 18:23:00 — thehill.com

Trump Orders Disclaimers at Smithsonian, Citing Exhibits That Do Not Reflect His Perspective

President Trump on Friday issued an executive order requiring disclaimers to be installed outside the Smithsonian’s Museum of American History. The order directs that these warnings inform visitors that some exhibits do not reflect his perspective on the nation’s past. In the executive order, titled “Restoring trust in the Smithsonian Institution,” Trump cited a recently-released report as justification for the move.

Challenging the Museum’s Narrative

The president’s directive explicitly targets the content of the museum, suggesting that its exhibits present a version of American history that he does not endorse. By mandating disclaimers, Trump is signaling his dissatisfaction with how the nation’s story is told to the public, and he is using executive authority to insert his viewpoint into a major cultural institution.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Position

Trump’s order implies that the Smithsonian’s exhibits are misleading or incomplete because they do not align with his perspective. However, the Smithsonian’s curatorial process is based on extensive historical research and scholarly consensus, not on the views of any single individual or administration. The president’s action represents a significant intervention in the presentation of American history, raising concerns about political influence over educational and cultural institutions.

Conclusion: A New Front in the Battle Over History

President Trump’s executive order to install disclaimers at the Smithsonian’s Museum of American History marks a notable escalation in his ongoing efforts to reshape public understanding of the nation’s past. By insisting that visitors be warned about exhibits that do not reflect his perspective, Trump is challenging the independence of historical institutions and the way Americans learn about their shared heritage. This move underscores the broader debate over who gets to define the nation’s history—and whose stories are told.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5989724-trump-orders-smithsonian-disclaimer/

To track down government leakers, Trump supports pursuing journalists

Politics — 2026-07-24 17:47:00 — www.washingtonpost.com

Trump Endorses Use of Subpoenas Against Reporters in Leak Investigations

In a move that has drawn significant attention, President Trump endorsed the use of subpoenas against reporters in national security leak investigations, just hours before addressing the White House press corps. This position marks a notable stance on press freedom and the handling of sensitive government information.

Trump’s Position on Subpoenas for Reporters

The president’s endorsement of subpoenas against journalists signals a willingness to use legal tools to compel reporters to reveal their sources in cases involving national security leaks. This approach has historically been controversial, raising concerns about the balance between safeguarding classified information and protecting the First Amendment rights of the press.

Implications for Press Freedom

Trump’s support for subpoenas in these investigations reflects a broader pattern of adversarial rhetoric toward the media. By backing legal action against reporters, the president has amplified fears among press advocates that such measures could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism and the public’s right to know.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Record

While Trump has frequently criticized the media, his endorsement of subpoenas represents a concrete policy position rather than a rhetorical attack. Fact-checkers and legal experts have pointed out that compelling journalists to disclose sources is rare and often challenged in court, given the strong protections for press freedom in the United States.

Conclusion

President Trump’s endorsement of using subpoenas against reporters in national security leak cases underscores his administration’s hardline approach to leaks and the press. As the debate continues over the proper balance between national security and freedom of the press, Trump’s position remains a focal point in discussions about government transparency and accountability.

Source article

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/07/24/identify-government-leakers-trump-supports-pursuing-journalists/

Donald J. Trump: “Republican Kurt Alme is a terrific candidate for the U.S. Senate in the Wond…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-07-24 15:28:00 — trumpstruth.org

Donald Trump Launches Baseless Attacks in Montana Senate Endorsement

Donald Trump has issued a sweeping endorsement of Republican Kurt Alme for the U.S. Senate in Montana, while launching a series of exaggerated and disparaging claims against Alme’s Democratic opponent, Alani Bankhead. Trump declared, “Kurt Alme is a terrific candidate for the U.S. Senate in the Wonderful State of Montana, which I love and WON BIG in 2016, 2020, and 2024.” He went on to call Alme “a truly Great American Patriot” and described Bankhead as a “Radical Left Democrat” who supports “High Taxes, Open Borders, No Consequences for Violent Criminals, Men in Women’s Sports, and Transgender for Everybody, among other CRAZY ideas!”

Exaggerated and Misleading Claims

Trump’s statement is filled with sweeping generalizations and attacks. He labels Bankhead as a “Radical Left Extremist” and a “Radical Left LUNATIC Dumocrat,” asserting that her values are not those of Montana or the United States. These characterizations are not supported by specific policy evidence in the excerpt and rely on inflammatory language rather than factual critique.

Trump also claims that Bankhead “loves High Taxes, Open Borders, No Consequences for Violent Criminals, Men in Women’s Sports, and Transgender for Everybody.” These assertions are common talking points but are not substantiated by any direct statements or policy positions from Bankhead in the excerpt. The use of such language is designed to paint political opponents in the most extreme light, a tactic Trump has frequently employed.

Distortion of Political Landscape

Trump’s assertion that he “WON BIG in 2016, 2020, and 2024” in Montana is also misleading. While he did win Montana in 2016 and 2020, the claim about 2024 is premature and cannot be fact-checked against actual election results at this time.

Furthermore, Trump’s blanket endorsement of Alme as “one of the Strongest, and most Conservative, Republican Candidates in the Country” and the claim that Alme “will ALWAYS put Montana, and America, FIRST” are subjective and lack specific policy details.

Conclusion

Trump’s endorsement of Kurt Alme is marked by a pattern of hyperbolic praise for his preferred candidate and unsubstantiated, disparaging attacks on his opponent. The statements rely heavily on exaggeration and distortion, rather than factual analysis or evidence-based critique. As the campaign progresses, voters should seek out concrete policy positions and verified information to inform their decisions, rather than relying on inflammatory rhetoric.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/40237

WATCH: Trump touts new nuclear reactors in his push to speed up domestic power

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-07-24 15:45:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump’s Claims and Contradictions: Fact-Checking the President’s Latest Remarks

President Donald Trump made a series of high-profile statements Friday as he hosted nuclear industry executives in the Oval Office, touching on nuclear power, the ongoing war with Iran, and a range of domestic and international issues. His remarks, however, were marked by exaggerations, evasions, and controversial positions that have drawn scrutiny.

Nuclear Power Boasts

Trump touted the administration’s progress on nuclear energy, claiming, “America is building again, America is dreaming again, and we’re leading the world in pioneering the next generation of nuclear power.” He credited his pilot program for bringing four new reactors online by July 4, a milestone he celebrated with industry leaders. While the Department of Energy has reported advancements in advanced nuclear reactors, Trump’s sweeping assertion that the U.S. is “leading the world” is an exaggeration; other nations, including China and Russia, have also made significant strides in nuclear technology.

Iran War: Indifference and Evasion

Addressing the ongoing war with Iran, Trump professed indifference to political consequences, stating, “I’m not in a hurry” to settle the conflict ahead of the midterm elections. He insisted he would not let rising gas prices and inflation “sway his decision,” despite having campaigned on lowering the cost of living—a promise complicated by the economic fallout of the war.

When pressed by reporters about whether targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran would constitute a war crime—a threat he has made repeatedly—Trump declined to answer, saying, “I won’t respond to that question.” This evasiveness comes after multiple threats to bomb civilian power plants and bridges, which he has since walked back.

Talks with Iran and Venezuela

Trump claimed that “sort of everybody” in his administration is engaged in talks with Iran, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He suggested negotiations are progressing because Iran is “getting more and more serious as the days go by,” though he offered no specifics.

On Venezuela, Trump said the country is “not really ready” for elections following the U.S.-led ouster of Nicolás Maduro. He asserted that the U.S. has brought economic benefits to Venezuela but did not address the devastation caused by recent earthquakes or provide details on those supposed benefits.

Attacks on Journalists and Tariff Threats

Trump defended his administration’s subpoenas targeting New York Times journalists, saying, “We have a long way to go with that case,” and insisted, “We’re not after journalists, we’re after leakers. And the way you find them is through the journalists.” This stance comes a day after the administration admitted legal errors and withdrew the subpoenas, raising concerns about press freedom.

He also announced plans to impose a “major tariff” on Mexico in response to a diarrhea-causing parasite found in Mexican lettuce, and threatened tariffs on Canada over wildfire smoke affecting the U.S.—an approach that conflates public health, environmental, and trade issues without clear evidence that tariffs would address the problems.

Election Bill and Republican Dissent

Trump said he would be “willing” to call senators to help move a stalled elections bill, boasting of his influence in the House and criticizing Senate Republicans who oppose the measure. He argued that showing ID and proof of citizenship to vote should be noncontroversial, dismissing dissent within his own party as “doing the wrong thing.”

Conclusion

President Trump’s latest remarks highlight a pattern of exaggeration, deflection, and attacks on critics and institutions. From overstating American leadership in nuclear power to evading questions on potential war crimes and threatening punitive tariffs, Trump continues to blur the lines between policy, political rhetoric, and personal grievance. As the administration faces mounting challenges at home and abroad, Trump’s statements underscore the importance of rigorous fact-checking and accountability.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-touts-new-nuclear-reactors-in-his-push-to-speed-up-production

Trump Meets With Top Advisers as He Weighs a Major Escalation in Iran

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-24 15:07:00 — www.nytimes.com

President Trump Signals Escalation in Iran Conflict, Downplays Duration of War

President Trump has indicated a possible major escalation in the ongoing U.S. military campaign against Iran, stating in an interview with Axios, “I am considering a massive attack. Bigger than ever before. I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it.” This comes as Trump met with top advisers and senior cabinet members to discuss intensifying military actions, following the collapse of a fragile cease-fire and failed diplomatic efforts for a longer-term denuclearization deal.

Trump also suggested that Israel would likely not participate in any new escalation, warning there could be “consequences” for them, apparently referring to potential Iranian retaliation. Despite these warnings, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with Trump in the United States.

Contrary to Trump’s repeated assurances that the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran would be a “relatively short ‘excursion,’” the conflict has now dragged on for nearly five months with no end in sight. The situation escalated after Iran struck a cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz, leading to renewed U.S. airstrikes and a military blockade. In the past two weeks, Iranian attacks have killed four U.S. service members, and the Pentagon has rapidly deployed additional forces and equipment to the region.

U.S. Central Command has carried out 13 consecutive nights of bombing runs, targeting Iranian military infrastructure and supply routes. Military officials report that over 1,000 targets have been hit in the latest escalation, though the Pentagon has stopped disclosing exact numbers, citing operational security.

Despite Trump’s threats of increased bombings, Iranian attacks have continued, and the country’s leadership appears determined to endure the conflict despite economic and military setbacks. Trump’s insistence on a quick resolution has proven inaccurate, as the war shows no signs of abating.

In summary, President Trump’s public statements have repeatedly downplayed the likely duration and complexity of the conflict with Iran, while the reality on the ground has become increasingly protracted and volatile. His rhetoric about a swift campaign has not matched the sustained and escalating hostilities, underscoring a significant gap between his assurances and the ongoing situation.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/24/us/politics/trump-escalation-iran.html

Trump fires back at EU over Google's $1B fine, launches probe

Administration News — 2026-07-24 13:06:00 — thehill.com

Trump Attacks EU Over Google Fine, Calls Move “Illegal and Highly Discriminatory”

President Trump on Friday sharply criticized the European Union for its decision to fine Google over alleged violations of digital competition law, labeling the action an “illegal and highly discriminatory practice.” Trump announced that the matter would be the subject of a trade investigation, escalating tensions between the U.S. and the EU on technology regulation.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump stated, “The European Union is at it again and, as usual, taking direct aim at GREAT American Companies!” His remarks reflect a pattern of disparaging the EU’s regulatory actions as unfairly targeting U.S. businesses, particularly in the tech sector.

Trump’s claim that the EU’s fine constitutes an “illegal and highly discriminatory practice” is part of a broader narrative he has promoted, alleging bias against American firms. However, the European Union maintains that its digital competition laws are designed to ensure fair competition and protect consumers, not to single out foreign companies.

This latest statement continues Trump’s record of making sweeping accusations against international partners without providing evidence for claims of illegality or discrimination. The EU’s actions are based on established legal frameworks, and similar fines have been levied against both European and non-European companies found in violation of competition rules.

Trump’s response underscores his confrontational approach to international economic disputes and his willingness to frame regulatory actions as attacks on American interests. By pledging a trade investigation, he signals a readiness to escalate the conflict, potentially impacting broader U.S.-EU relations.

Conclusion

President Trump’s public condemnation of the EU’s fine against Google and his characterization of the move as “illegal and highly discriminatory” exemplify his tendency to make unsubstantiated claims and to disparage international regulatory efforts. As the trade investigation unfolds, the accuracy of Trump’s assertions and the broader implications for U.S.-EU cooperation will remain closely watched.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5988736-trump-eu-google-fine-investigation/

Donald J. Trump: “President Xi, at our recent meeting in Beijing, China, told me that he would…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-07-24 10:15:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Claims Xi and Putin Assured Him They Would Not Sell Weapons to Iran

Donald Trump has asserted that both Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin personally assured him they would not provide weapons to Iran. In a recent statement, Trump said, “President Xi, at our recent meeting in Beijing, China, told me that he would not, under any circumstances, give or sell Weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran — And that statement included Chinese Companies. Considering our relationship, I take him at his word and, besides, l am doing him very big favors, also.” Trump further claimed, “Likewise, President Putin, despite the horrible War going on in Ukraine (The relationship remains, as it does with President Zelenskyy), told me that he would not sell Weapons to Iran. He understands that I do not sell Weapons to Ukraine, but to NATO Countries. They pay full price, and how those Weapons are distributed, I have no idea.”

Trump’s Assertions on Weapons Sales

Trump’s remarks center on his reported conversations with Xi and Putin, in which he claims both leaders promised not to supply arms to Iran. He emphasizes his trust in their assurances, stating he takes Xi “at his word” and referencing the “very big favors” he claims to be doing for China. Trump also draws a distinction between his own reported arms sales, saying he does not sell weapons to Ukraine, only to NATO countries, and claims ignorance about how those weapons are distributed.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Statements

Trump’s comments present several issues for scrutiny:

• Reliance on Personal Assurances: Trump’s statement relies entirely on his personal relationships and private conversations with Xi and Putin, with no independent verification or evidence provided to support these claims.
• Distribution of U.S. Weapons: Trump asserts, “I do not sell Weapons to Ukraine, but to NATO Countries. They pay full price, and how those Weapons are distributed, I have no idea.” This characterization omits the well-documented U.S. military aid and direct arms transfers to Ukraine, particularly since the Russian invasion in 2022, which have been widely reported and tracked by government disclosures.
• Implications for International Security: Trump suggests that if China or Russia were to provide weapons to Iran, “it would be very bad for them — Certainly not in their best interests.” This statement implies a threat or warning, but again, it is based solely on Trump’s interpretation and not on any public diplomatic or policy measures.

Conclusion

Trump’s latest claims about assurances from Xi and Putin regarding arms sales to Iran highlight his ongoing reliance on personal relationships and private assurances in matters of international security. His statements also misrepresent the nature of U.S. arms transfers, particularly regarding Ukraine. As with many of Trump’s public assertions, these remarks lack independent corroboration and contradict established facts about U.S. military aid. Readers should approach such statements with caution and seek out verified information from official sources.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/40232