Last year, the Trump administration launched an unusual appeal to visitors at US national parks: report any displays or exhibits that presented “negative” perspectives on Americans, whether living or historical.
However, an extensive analysis of 35,000 public comments, recently disclosed through a lawsuit, reveals that the vast majority of respondents instead used the opportunity to sharply criticize the administration’s own initiative.
The public reaction was swift and often scathing, with many comments directly challenging the policy’s intent. One visitor to a North Carolina park unequivocally labeled the administration’s efforts “un-American,” while another scorned the very concept of “having Americans call in and snitch on each other.”
A particularly pointed comment from North Dakota’s Theodore Roosevelt National Park directly challenged the then-president, stating, “Hey Donald Trump! Trying to erase history doesn’t mean it didn’t still happen!”
Indeed, more than half of the submissions, even before accounting for any duplicative entries, constituted a significant backlash against the policy itself, according to an Associated Press analysis.
While some comments did flag specific interpretive changes that officials might now seek to undo – and in dozens of instances already have, according to one monitoring group – the overall public engagement was relatively modest.
Considering the National Park Service recorded some 323 million visits across more than 400 sites last year, the 35,000 initial public comments received from June to January, and subsequently released following a Sierra Club lawsuit, represented a comparatively tepid response to such a broad directive.
The administration’s push originated from an order by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, which targeted “inappropriate content.” This included any signs and exhibits deemed “negative about either past or living Americans or that fail to emphasize the beauty, grandeur, and abundance of landscapes and other natural features.”
This directive followed an earlier order by Donald Trump titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which aimed to underscore America’s achievements and the splendor of its natural landscape.
Burgum articulated the goal as restoring sites to “solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing.”
A dedicated watchdog group, Save Our Signs, composed of librarians, public historians, and data experts, has meticulously documented at least 59 instances of signs being removed or modified, drawing on photo submissions and news reports.
These alterations notably affected content referring to slavery, climate change, women’s rights and their historical involvement in conservation, and Native American history, according to Jenny McBurney, a government publications librarian at the University of Minnesota and a key member of the group.
McBurney critically observed, “It seems to be anything that is sort of going against the ideology, this idea of America is perfect and can do no wrong, which of course we know is not true.”
Significant changes were observed at Philadelphia’s Independence National Historical Park, where the administration controversially removed exhibits detailing the lives of nine individuals enslaved at the site in the 1790s under George Washington, the first US president.
