A [Democratic](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/democrats) representative told the [US House](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/house-of-representatives) on Wednesday he was bringing articles of impeachment against [Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) for his proposal to “[take over Gaza](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/05/donald-trump-plan-to-take-over-gaza-strip-netanyahu-visit)”. Trump’s plan, the [Texas](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/texas) representative Al Green said, was a “dastardly deed” that amounted to ethnic cleansing. The aggressive move came as Democrats stepped up their resistance to the fledgling [Trump administration](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/trump-administration) and its barrage of chaotic, power-grabbing new policies that [many see as a coup](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/03/the-guardian-view-on-donald-trumps-power-grab-a-coup-veiled-by-chaos). Green, a firebrand politician who launched a number of unsuccessful attempts to impeach Trump during his first term in office, is unlikely to find much traction on his latest effort. Pete Aguilar, the No 3 House Democrat, told Politico on Wednesday that impeachment was [not an immediate focus](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/05/congress/green-moves-to-impeach-trump-again-00202601) of his caucus. But it is evidence that more elected Democrats are finding their voice amid what critics say has been a [muted response so far](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/03/democrats-opposition-trump) to the extremes of Trump’s 16-day-old second presidency. The liberal advocacy group Call to Activism posted on X on Tuesday a [clip of the Maryland representative Jamie Raskin](https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1886798462219325832) suggesting he was also open to a new impeachment effort. “If you can find me two Republicans, I’ll go to work tomorrow,” Raskin said, referring to the governing party’s wafer-thin House majority. Green invoked the late civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr in lambasting Trump’s proposal to remove Palestinians from [Gaza](https://www.theguardian.com/world/gaza) and rebuild the war-torn territory as a US-owned “Riviera of the Middle East”. The plan has been globally condemned as “[outrageous](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/05/donald-trump-gaza-plan-global-stability-us-soldiers)”, “shameful” and “[illegal](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-official-says-trumps-remarks-about-taking-over-gaza-are-could-ignite-2025-02-05/)”. “Ethnic cleansing in [Gaza](https://www.theguardian.com/world/gaza) is not a joke, especially when it emanates from the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world,” he said. “And the prime minister of Israel should be ashamed, knowing the history of his people, to stand there and allow such things to be said. “Dr King was right. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and injustice in Gaza is a threat to justice in the United States of America. I rise to announce that the movement to impeach the president has begun. I rise to announce that I will bring articles of impeachment against the president for dastardly deeds proposed, and dastardly deeds done.” Green said the “impeachment movement is going to be a grass-up movement, not a top-down”, and that “when the people demand it, it will be done”. [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/05/al-green-trump-impeachment-articles-gaza#EmailSignup-skip-link-11) Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning **Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.theguardian.com/help/privacy-policy). We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google [Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and [Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. after newsletter promotion [ Donald Trump’s Gaza plan: the key takeaways ](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/05/donald-trump-gaza-strip-plan-take-over-move-palestinians-ownership) Trump was impeached twice during his first term, in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over his [efforts to seek help from Ukraine](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/31/trump-impeachment-inquiry-timeline-key-events) in the following year’s presidential election; and [again in 2021](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/10/donald-trump-impeachment-trial-what-you-need-to-know) for inciting the January 6 Capitol riot following his defeat by Joe Biden. He was acquitted in the Senate on both occasions. “I know that it’s time for us to lay the foundation again,” Green said on Wednesday. “On some issues, it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. On this issue, I stand alone, but I stand for justice.” This article was amended on 5 February 2025 because an earlier version misquoted Al Green as saying “desperate deeds”, rather than “dastardly deeds”.

Congressional Republicans, egged on by Elon Musk and other top allies of President Trump, are escalating calls to remove federal judges who stand in the way of administration efforts to overhaul the government. The outcry is threatening yet another assault on the constitutional guardrails that constrain the executive branch. Judicial impeachments are rare and notoriously time-consuming. The mounting calls for removing federal judges, who already face increasing security threats, have so far not gained much traction with congressional leaders. Any such move would be all but certain to fail in the Senate, where a two-thirds majority would be needed for a conviction. But even the suggestion represents another extraordinary attempt by Republicans to breach the foundational separation of powers barrier as Trump allies seek to exert iron-fisted control over the full apparatus of government. And Democrats charge that it is designed to intimidate federal judges from issuing rulings that may go against Mr. Trump’s wishes. “The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges,” Mr. Musk wrote this week on X, his social media platform, in one of multiple posts demanding that uncooperative federal judges be ousted from their lifetime seats on the bench. “We must impeach to save democracy,” Mr. Musk said in another entry on X after a series of rulings slowed the Trump administration’s moves to halt congressionally approved spending cuts and conduct mass firings of executive branch workers. He pointed to a purge of judges by the right-wing government in El Salvador as part of the successful effort to assert control over the government there. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F03%2F01%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-musk-republicans-congress-judge-impeachment.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F03%2F01%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-musk-republicans-congress-judge-impeachment.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F03%2F01%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-musk-republicans-congress-judge-impeachment.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F03%2F01%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-musk-republicans-congress-judge-impeachment.html).

President Trump escalated his confrontation with the judicial branch today by demanding the impeachment of a federal judge who had ordered the administration to halt its plan to deport more than 200 migrants. The president called the judge, James Boasberg, a “Radical Left Lunatic” and insisted on his removal. Soon after, a Trump ally in Congress filed articles of impeachment against the judge. The attacks against Boasberg — a centrist Democrat who [lived with Justice Brett Kavanaugh](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/us/politics/judge-boasberg-trump-deportation-flights.html) while they were at Yale Law School — prompted John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, [to issue a rare public rebuke](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/us/chief-justice-roberts-impeachment-trump.html). “For more than two centuries,” Roberts said, “it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” Around the same time, lawyers for the Trump administration [continued their aggressive pushback against Boasberg’s ruling](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/us/politics/trump-venezuela-deportations-doj-court-order.html), which barred the U.S. from deporting people suspected of belonging to a Venezuelan street gang under a statute called the Alien Enemies Act. They complied only in part with Boasberg’s instructions to provide data on the deportation flights, [which had not yet landed](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/17/us/politics/timeline-trump-deportation-flights-el-salvador.html) when the judge ordered them to turn around.

Over the weekend, the Trump administration ignored a federal judge’s order not to deport a group of Venezuelan men, violating an instruction that could not have been plainer or more direct. Justice Department lawyers later justified the administration’s actions with contentions that many legal experts said bordered on frivolous. The line between arguments in support of a claimed right to disobey court orders and outright defiance has become gossamer thin, they said, again raising the question of whether the latest clash between President Trump and the judiciary amounts to a constitutional crisis. Legal scholars say that is no longer the right inquiry. Mr. Trump is already undercutting the separation of powers at the heart of the constitutional system, they say, and the right question now is how it will transform the nation. “If anyone is being detained or removed based on the administration’s assertion that it can do so without judicial review or due process,” said [Jamal Greene](https://www.law.columbia.edu/faculty/jamal-greene), a law professor at Columbia, “the president is asserting dictatorial power and ‘constitutional crisis’ doesn’t capture the gravity of the situation.” Mr. Trump raised the stakes on Tuesday by calling for the impeachment of the judge who issued the order, James E. Boasberg of the Federal District Court in Washington, describing him [on social media](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114183576937425149) as a “Radical Left Lunatic.” Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F03%2F19%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-deportations-constitutional-crisis-impeachment.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F03%2F19%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-deportations-constitutional-crisis-impeachment.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F03%2F19%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-deportations-constitutional-crisis-impeachment.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F03%2F19%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-deportations-constitutional-crisis-impeachment.html).

 Republicans on Capitol Hill are planning ways to push back at the federal judiciary over allegations that activist judges are unfairly targeting the Trump administration. But GOP members are divided about what to do, and their efforts to block action by the courts face significant political and legal hurdles. President Trump's efforts to remake the shape and size of the federal government using Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and his use of a war-era statute to deport a group of Venezuelans have been reviewed by the courts. Some GOP lawmakers have filed [articles of impeachment](https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/229/text) to remove judges and others are pushing legislation to [bar district judges](https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-introduces-legislation-restraining-rogue-judges-nationwide-injunctions/#:~:text=The%20Nationwide%20Injunction%20Abuse%20Prevent,not%20to%20the%20entire%20nation.) from [issuing national injunctions](https://issa.house.gov/media/press-releases/issa-rogue-judges-are-trump-resistance-robes-my-bill-will-stop-them) following public pressure on [social media](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1894513915352027540) from [Trump](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114183576937425149) and [Musk](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1894529307524923512) to impeach or punish judges. Democrats dismiss the effort as purely political and legally unsound since the series of court rulings GOP lawmakers are fighting come down to a a disagreement about the law, not high crimes or corruption on the part of judges. ### Impeachment effort divides GOP Texas Republican Rep. Brandon Gill argued U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg abused his power and has filed a resolution to impeach him. Boasberg [questioned](https://www.npr.org/2025/03/21/nx-s1-5335532/trump-judge-alien-enemies-act) the Trump administration's use of the _Alien Enemies Act_ of 1798 after the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cited the law when it flew over 100 Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador. President Trump also called for Boasberg's removal. The administration is appealing that decision arguing the individuals were members of Tren de Aragua, a gang deemed a terrorist organization. Gill says 19 others have co-sponsored his resolution and he maintained the judge was stepping on the president's authority by "usurping his powers as Commander in chief to conduct our foreign policy and to repel alien enemies." The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., dismissed the GOP effort, saying "Threatening judges with impeachment or retribution for upholding their oaths of office and doing their jobs under the Constitution is an act of outlaw tyranny, not constitutional government." Several House GOP sources admit they don't have the votes to pass an impeachment resolution. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, who would preside over any impeachment, told reporters "everything is on the table" and said he briefed President Trump this weekend about his plans to act. Jordan is expected to convene a hearing next Tuesday. Jordan said 15 national injunctions have been issued in the last month in response to Trump administration actions. "The country instinctively knows that there's been this aggressive push against the president for policies he campaigned on and he was elected to implement," Jordan said. "That's a problem." But even if the GOP-led House could pass an impeachment resolution convicting and removing a judge requires a supermajority in the Senate and it's unlikely Republicans would get any support from Democrats. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., pointed out that the appeals process, not impeachment was the proper route to fight back against rulings, saying on Monday "at the end of the day, there is a process and there's an appeals process. And, you know, I suspect that's ultimately how this will get handled." The Trump Justice department has already appealed the ruling by Judge Boasberg. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the impeachment push by some House Republicans "an unmitigated waste of time." He said floor time in the Senate is "the coin of the realm" and those pushing impeachment will be disappointed when not a single judge will be impeached because they won't have 67 votes to remove them. "I'm not here to make a point," Tillis said, "we're here to make a difference." Gill, pressed about the reality of the Senate not having the votes to convict even if the House did impeach Boasberg told reporters "What we can do in the House is separate from that and I think just getting an impeachment bill through the House would send a pretty clear message to rogue activist judges." Congress has rarely exercised its authority to remove federal officials, including judges. According to the [House historian's office](https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/#:~:text=The%20Use%20of%20Impeachment&text=Just%20eight%20individuals%E2%80%94all%20federal,in%201998%2C%20and%20Donald%20J.), 15 federal judges were impeached but just eight have been convicted and removed by the Senate. ### Legislation to limit rulings by district judges to get House vote While Jordan and the Senate Judiciary panel explore hearings, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is making plans for a House vote next week on legislation that would bar district judges from issuing national injunctions. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., sponsored the legislation and says it's about addressing what he called "a growing trend" of district court judges' decisions having broad impact nationally. He argued it was about striking a balance and restricting the scope of rulings, saying "it goes back to the very creation of district courts. You know, we don't need a Supreme Court if 700 judges can each do what the Supreme Court does." Issa said his bill was one step Congress could take immediately. "Impeachment is a tool best used rarely," he said. "Well, legislation that defines the role of district court judges is appropriate at any time. That's what we've done since the creation of district court courts, which were created by Congress." Johnson maintained that the Trump administration is facing what he called an "unusual" response from the courts and he endorsed Issa's bill. "It is a dangerous trend and it violates equal justice under law. That critical principle, it violates our system itself. It violates separation of powers. When a judge thinks that they can enjoin something that a president is doing, that the American people voted for, that is not what the founders intended." Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is pushing legislation similar to Issa's and says he remembers some Democrats complaining about national injunctions when some of President Biden's actions were going through the courts. He argues that there is a systemic issue and said that he believes district judges don't currently have the power to issue broad decisions that apply nationally. "I think we ought to just make it clear, if you're a district court, you can bind the parties who are in front of you or the parties who are in your district. but you cannot bind people outside your purview. Only the Supreme Court can do that," Hawley said. Another option Republicans in Congress are considering limiting or redirecting the amount of money they approve for federal courts through the appropriations process. But they are unlikely to find Democratic support for any effort that amounts to defunding the judiciary. Hawley noted that President Thomas Jefferson feuded with the judiciary during his tenure but he said that instead of reducing judges he wants the GOP Senate to fill existing vacancies on the federal bench, "I'd like to fill those with Republican judges as opposed to eliminate spots."

May 1, 2025 7:19 AM The largest investors in Donald Trump’s crypto coin have been promised a private audience with the president. The arrangement could put Trump at odds with the Constitution and add fuel to calls for his impeachment, experts say.  Photo-Illustration: WIRED Staff/Getty Images When Donald Trump agreed to attend a dinner with the largest investors in his [own-brand cryptocurrency](https://www.wired.com/story/the-trump-memecoins-money-grab-economics/), he transformed the TRUMP coin into something else entirely: a means of access to the sitting president. As a consequence, Trump could find himself at odds with constitutional prohibitions of bribery and corruption, experts claim. Trump’s dinner announcement on April 23 instigated a trading frenzy that, on paper, added hundreds of millions of dollars to his net worth. Two subsidiaries of the Trump Organization, a conglomerate owned by the president, [control 80 percent](https://gettrumpmemes.com/) of the total supply of the coin, which [shot up in price](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/official-trump/) by almost 60 percent after the announcement. Those subsidiaries also [profit from any surge in trading volume](https://www.wired.com/story/trump-memecoin-dinner-winners/) as rent-seeking intermediaries. However, the dinner maneuver may have political consequences for Trump. In creating the opportunity for anybody with sufficient wealth to purchase an audience, Trump risks falling foul of a part of the US Constitution—the emoluments clauses—that prohibit the president from accepting gifts or financial compensation from [foreign](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C8-1/ALDE_00013203/) and [domestic](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C7-1/ALDE_00000233/) state actors. In a worst-case scenario for the president, the potential for negative optics could add fuel to calls for his impeachment. “Trump has built an entire life prodding the border of what a powerful person can get away with,” claims Jeff Hauser, executive director at the Revolving Door Project, an organization that seeks to scrutinize the behavior of elected officials. “But at some point in time, he could push a little too far and it comes back on him. This \[dinner\] has the possibility of being that.” The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Trump [announced](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113846888132979151) his coin on January 18, a few days prior to his inauguration. At the time, he pitched it as a memecoin, a type of asset whose only purpose is to enable financial speculation. The price of memecoins tends to whipsaw dramatically with swings in public sentiment toward the person, meme, or concept they are based upon. The dinner gambit puts the TRUMP coin in a different class entirely. In establishing an explicit quid pro quo—a large investment in exchange for an audience—the maneuver has effectively turned TRUMP into a utility coin, an asset that bestows on holders some perk or advantage. That change was immediately felt in the markets, when the price of TRUMP surged in the hour after the dinner was announced. The expectation of further opportunities to spend time with Trump may continue to prop up the price. “The door to utility has been opened. The market will expect further utility to come from holding that coin,” says Nathan van der Heyden, head of business development at crypto company Aragon. “Before, you were speculating on a TRUMP coin with no utility. Now you’re speculating on future access to Trump. That has to be worth a bit more money.” The act of transmuting his cryptocurrency into a utility coin is unlikely to have immediate regulatory implications for Trump. In February, the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the financial regulator that policed the crypto industry most tightly under the Biden administration, [made clear](https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/staff-statement-meme-coins) that it does not consider memecoins to fall within its jurisdiction. Likewise, during Trump’s first term, the agency [reached a similar conclusion](https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/statement-clayton-2017-12-11) about utility coins. “Whether it’s a utility token or a memecoin, it’s not regulated by the SEC,” says Lisa Bragança, attorney at Bragança Law and former branch chief at the SEC. Therefore, to avoid the attention of regulators, Trump need only refrain from fraud and unfair trade practices, she says. However, experts wonder whether it could have legal implications. Though critics have argued from the beginning that TRUMP could create a pathway for bribery—by investing large sums into the coin, driving up its price, politically motivated actors could theoretically curry favor with the president—the dinner brings the risk of violating emoluments restrictions into stark relief. “If the government of Yemen buys up oodles of memecoins, we won’t know,” says Bragança. “If it’s a utility coin and, say, a representative of Russia shows up for dinner with the president, we know it’s an emoluments issue.” Today, access to the sitting US president carries a greater potential political currency than ever. “Trump is amalgamating even more power in the executive branch than anyone has before,” claims Hauser. “With ever greater power comes a larger warehouse of favors that can be sold.” At present, the names of the TRUMP holders [set to win a place at the dinner](https://trumpdinner.gettrumpmemes.com/leaderboard) are concealed behind pseudonyms and alphanumeric crypto wallet addresses. The White House did not respond when asked whether the attendee list will be made public. Whether Trump would face any consequences for theoretically violating foreign emoluments laws depends on the strength of his grip on Congress, the political class tasked with upholding the Constitution, including through impeachment. In the halls of Congress, calls for Trump’s impeachment are already growing. “He is granting audiences to people who buy the memecoin that directly enriches him,” said Democrat senator Jon Ossoff in a [town hall meeting](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF2xsYOi9H8) on April 25. “There is no doubt that this president’s conduct has already exceeded any prior standard for impeachment.” For now, the Republican congressional majority and Trump’s command of his party mean impeachment calls are unlikely to go anywhere. Equally, Trump has previously [prevailed in multiple lawsuits](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html) alleging that he violated emoluments clauses during his first time in connection with his hotel business, which were later dismissed. “The violation of the Constitution should be a big deal, but how to make it consequential is challenging,” says Hauser. “Right now, Trump rules the Republican party with such an iron hand that the notion of a successful impeachment leading to a guilty verdict is just somewhat fanciful.” However, in its potential to paint Trump in an unflattering light—as a president who puts his own financial interests over those of the nation—the TRUMP coin dinner could contribute to shifting the dial. With the midterm elections only a year away and the Republican House majority only slim, public perception matters. “The opportunity for corruption is not meaningfully changed by the dinner. But the optics are potentially much worse for Trump,” says Hauser. “The unseemliness changes the odds of there being any ramifications to Trump violating the emoluments clause. It creates more vulnerability.”

The Smithsonian Institution has scrubbed all mention of [Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump)’s impeachments from a prominent display at the National Museum of American History, temporarily eliminating any acknowledgment of the president’s unique status as the only US leader the House impeached twice. The alterations to the presidential power exhibit, first reported by [the Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/2025/07/31/trump-impeachment-smithsonian/), occurred in July, with museum officials replacing contemporary signage with an older version that excludes Trump’s impeachment proceedings entirely. Visitors now see only a generic reference to three presidents facing potential removal from office. Museum representatives confirmed the changes followed an institutional review of exhibition content. “In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the ‘Limits of Presidential Power’ section in The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden exhibition needed to be addressed,” a Smithsonian spokesperson told the Guardian. “Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance.” The spokesperson pledged that “a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments,” though they provided no specific timeline for implementation. The move comes as Trump has waged a systematic campaign to [reshape federal cultural agencies](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2025/apr/14/trumps-assault-culture-echo-nazis-degenerate-art) since returning to power, and issued directives aimed at purging what he categorizes as diversity initiatives and halting new federal appointments. Earlier this year, he signed an [executive order](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/27/trump-smithsonian-executive-order) directing the elimination of “anti-American ideology” across Smithsonian museums and promising to “restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness”. The order specifically [targets several Smithsonian facilities](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/29/artists-react-trump-administration-smithsonian-institution) for ideological review, including the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Trump faced impeachment charges twice during his first presidency – initially over allegations he pressured Ukraine to investigate political rivals, then later for his role in the 6 January 2021 Capitol attack. The Senate cleared him on both occasions. That historic distinction has now vanished from the nation’s premier history museum, while displays covering Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon’s impeachment cases remain untouched. The spokesperson explained that temporary materials addressing Trump’s impeachments had been installed in September 2021 as “a short-term measure to address current events at the time, however, the label remained in place until July 2025”. The Smithsonian operates as a [congressional trust](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/29/what-is-the-smithsonian-institution) with an annual budget exceeding $1bn and attracts millions of visitors annually to its network of museums, making it a key cultural touchstone for public education about American history.