The National Parks and Patriotism

A federal district court in Massachusetts has granted an injunction for the Association of National Park Rangers, and others, against the Secretary of Interior’s implementation of a directive that resulted in the removal of interpretive signs that did not conform with an Executive Order signed by President Trump in March 2025. The court has ordered that the signs be replaced, in a nationwide order.1

All of this is in the context of the celebration of the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Executive Orders are directives from the President to direct how they will organize and implement federal law and regulation through the Departments and agencies. These are places where Presidential policy can be implemented where it is not contrary to federal law. Regulation can be shaped as well, but must be within the scope of a statute with power granted to make those regulations from Congress.

The President signed an Executive Order entitled, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” in March 20252 The stated purpose and policy of the directive to federal departments and agencies is seeking to move from previous policy to that of the current Administration with this purpose:

Section 1. Purpose and Policy. Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth. This revisionist movement seeks to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light. Under this historical revision, our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed. Rather than fostering unity and a deeper understanding of our shared past, the widespread effort to rewrite history deepens societal divides and fosters a sense of national shame, disregarding the progress America has made and the ideals that continue to inspire millions around the globe.3

Examples and planned actions in the Executive Order are those that a President can make within that Administration. Further down in the body of the Executive Order is a caveat that all this must be done in conformance with applicable law.4

The litigation was brought by these parties: National Parks Conservation Association; American Association for State and Local History; Association of National Park Rangers Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks; Society for Experiential Graphic Designers; and Union of Concerned Scientists in response to the removal of selected interpretive signs and exhibits at several National Parks. The Park at Independence Hall, depicting the lives of some of the slaves kept at President Washington’s home in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was particularly at issue with a directive in the E.O.. The Executive Order specifically named that National Park for “improve[ment]” of the “infrastructure” but in implementing that directive, there was a removal of nonconforming exhibits in such a way the existence of the topics were erased all together.5 Here is the language of the E.O.:

Sec. 3. Restoring Independence Hall. The Secretary of the Interior shall provide sufficient funding, as available, to improve the infrastructure of Independence National Historical Park, which shall be complete by July 4, 2026, the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.6

To the dismay of historians in general, nine of about a dozen poster-style exhibits about the life of the slaves in this location which was President George Washington’s home when Philadelphia was the capital of the United States, were simply removed from the wall leaving huge gaps between the posters. The objective evidence of this erasure could not have been more obvious and symbolic.

Soon after the E.O. was issued, the City of Philadelphia sued the National Park Service to stop the removal of the exhibits in Philadelphia January. In February, the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the National Park Service granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (to stop any further removals) and ordered that the federal government must restore the exhibits. It is not a good sign, when the judge begins their opinion with a quote from Orwell’s novel, 1984. They wrote:

"As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's 1984 now existed, with its motto 'Ignorance is Strength,' this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims — to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not."7

The court looked at several factors to determine if the National Park Service could be stopped at least temporarily while the case was decided over a period of months or more. Passing the hurdles of jurisdiction and process, the court asked whether the action of the agency was “arbitrary and capricious” and two actions fell strongly against the DOI. In Administrative Law, courts have said that agencies must give a reason for reversing policy, some reasoned analysis—change of facts, discoveries, etc., but here the court found that simply citing to the Executive Order was not sufficient reason. The court also asked if there had been such a change in public opinion that this kind of exhibit was not longer wanted, and citing from the plaintiff’s facts, the court dedicated a lot of space in the opinion to the public opinion poll find that to the contrary, the public wanted to know more about the history, good, bad and ugly:

Plaintiffs provide a 2026 Pew Research Center survey reporting that sixty-six percent of all U.S. adults believe it is “extremely or very important to publicly discuss [both] the country’s historical successes and strengths” as well as “the country’s historical failures and flaws.” See Andy Cerda, Majorities of Americans Say It’s Important to Talk About the Country’s Historical Successes and Failures, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Jan. 26, 2026), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/01/26/majorities-of-americans-say-itsimportant-to-talk-about-the-countrys-historical-successes-and-failures (hereinafter “Pew Research Study”). This opinion cuts across race, age, and educational background, with the majority of each demographic group surveyed supporting the presentation of an unbiased history. 8

Thus, the action was “arbitrary and capricious.” The court also asks whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in the full trial, and one of those factors is whether there was any law violated. The court found there was a likelihood of success for the parties given the failure to procedurally change the regulation and the violation of one of the applicable National Park Service statutes, itself.

There are several statutes that were part of the analysis of the legal framework for National Park interpretations and exhibits. The organic statute (the one that describes the scope of authority of the department) is always consulted first and from there further statutes can be applied. The Centennial Act was specific as to the use of “high quality” interpretive exhibits and the statute was specific about what that meant, as cited by the court’s opinion:

Congress then provided clear instructions for what qualifies as “highest quality.” Section 100803 of the Act explains that the Secretary may undertake a program of regular evaluation “to ensure that [interpretation and education programs] . . . reflect different cultural backgrounds, ages, education, gender, abilities, ethnicity, and needs.”7 54 U.S.C. § 100803(2).9

When Congress speaks through legislation, the Executive Branch cannot alter that even if policy has changed. Because Congress speaks for the people, legislation prevails over Executive Branch directives.

The Federal District Court in Massachusetts order is applicable nationally, thus making it a sweeping order. The court made a finding of actions taken by the National Parks Service, and here, they cite to specific examples of the targeting of Native American tribal history:

Defendants have also removed multiple interpretive materials dedicated to Native Tribes and describing the atrocities committed to their communities, such as: • A sign at Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming explaining the complicated history of Gustavus Cheyney Doane, a key member of an early Yellowstone expedition who had participated in a massacre of Native Americans. • Signs at Acadia National Park in Maine describing the importance of Cadillac Mountain to the Wabanaki people to their culture and heritage. • Portions of displays at Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona characterizing settlers, cattle ranchers, and tourists as negatively impacting the land for their own benefit and describing how the federal government claimed Tribal land to establish the park. 10

There were many ways this could have worked and the Presidential policy of patriotism could have been effectively incorporated into the National Park Service interpretation. There were clearly elements of some of these examples of interpretive exhibits that were based on policy priorities of the prior Administration; however there are clearly examples of collaborative interpretations with historians and actual historical documentation. Interpretation without hiding the past would have furthered the goal of patriotism and would have provided a fresh interpretation. The most essential part of these interpretations would be for the National Park System to work in consultation with those most knowledgeable about these histories.

A golden opportunity in the Golden Age was missed.