The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn
Aaron Blake
, CNN
US President Donald Trump.
Photo:
AFP
Analysis
- Back in March, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: "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."
Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump's liking.
The order, for example, cited a desire to remove "improper ideology" - an ominous phrase, if there ever was one - from properties like the Smithsonian.
Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments.
The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum's "legacy content."
The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021.
Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about "Limits of Presidential Power." And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump's were gone.
It wasn't immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump's executive order.
The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director.
In other words, we don't know all the details of precisely how this went down - including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure.
The Smithsonian said in a statement that it was "not asked by any administration" or government official to remove content and that an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump's.
But it's all pretty Orwellian. And it's not the only example.
Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level.
Last week, Trump
fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
. This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010.
Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr Erika McEntarfer's removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work.
But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that.
He told Newsmax that "we fired her because we didn't believe the numbers today."
To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN's Daniel Dale documented Friday.
And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it "kind of impetuous" to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong.
"It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for," said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic.
Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump "just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up."
Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump's move would make it so people can't trust the data the administration is putting out.
And that's the real problem here. It's not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it's the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position.
The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump's liking, or else.
It's a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked - both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy.
What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it?
We've certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling:
All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics.
But if there's a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one.
- CNN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
US tariffs: Some Pacific nations get relief, others face increase
US President Donald Trump holds a chart titled 'Reciprocal Tariffs' during an event at the White House in Washington, DC, on 2 April 2025. Photo: AFP / Brendan Smialowski Pacific Islands still face tariffs from the United States, but some rates are lower than originally announced in April . The White House announced last week that the "universal" tariff for goods coming into the US will remain at 10 percent , the same level that was implemented on 2 April before the pause. But that 10 percent rate will apply only to countries with which the US has a trade surplus - countries to which the US exports more than it imports. That applies to most countries, a senior administration official said. A 15 percent rate will serve as the new tariff floor for countries with which the America has a trade deficit. About 40 countries will pay that new 15 per cent tariff. The tariff in Fiji has more than halved - from 32 percent to 15 percent. Fiji's trade ministry welcomed the drop from 32 per cent to 15 per cent. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade Manoa Kamikamica said the reduction offers welcome relief to Fiji's exporters and helps preserve their competitiveness in the US market - but it's not the end of the road yet. "The 15 percent tariff is not the end of the journey. As referred to in the [US] executive order of 1 August 2025, Fiji is designated as a country in ongoing negotiations with the United States," he said in a statement. The reduced tariff rate will take effect from 8 August, applying to all goods of Fijian origin unless excluded under specific provisions. "We remain committed to advancing these discussions in good faith. Our ultimate goal is to significantly reduce the 15 per cent tariff," Kamikamica said. The Fijian government said the country accounts for less than 0.0001 per cent of total US imports, "posing no discernible threat to US industry." Vanuatu's tariffs have been dropped from 22 per cent to 15, and Nauru's from 30 per cent also to 15. However, Papua New Guinea has seen an increase from 10 to 15 percent, while New Zealand has also been given the 15 percent tariff. Speaking to RNZ's Morning Report , Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the tariff, which had been expected to be at 10 percent, being at a higher percentage was "not what New Zealand wanted" . Top diplomat Vangelis Vitalis was flying to Washington in the wake of the announcement, with Trade Minister Todd McClay intending to visit in coming days too. Despite the higher tariff, Luxon said the government had "played it well". "We continue to register our disappointment about the decision; we've also done it since April." He believed New Zealand exporters were "nimble and agile" and there was still huge demand for New Zealand products and services globally. The opposition said the 15 percent tariff was a "slap in the face" for exporters.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Trump trade tariff decision came 'blunt and late', Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the 15 percent trade tariff is "not what he wanted". Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The decision by US President Donald Trumo to hit New Zealand exporters with a 15 percent tariff came "blunt and late", the Prime Minster says. Speaking to Morning Report, Christopher Luxon said the tariff, which had been expected to be at 10 percent, being at a higher percentage was "not what New Zealand wanted". "We disagree with tariffs," Luxon said, "the president is pretty fixed on his views and unlikely to change." "The decision came pretty blunt and late." Despite this, top diplomat Vangelis Vitalis was flying to Washington in the wake of the announcement, with Trade Minister Todd McClay intending to visit in coming days too. Luxon said prior to the announcement New Zealand had "really constructive" conversations with the US about trade, and the decision had been made close to the announcement. Despite the higher tariff, Luxon said the government had "played it well". "We continue to register our disappointment about the decision, we've also done it since April." He believed New Zealand exporters were "nimble and agile" and there was still huge demand for New Zealand products and services globally. But the opposition, said the 15 percent tariff was a "slap in the face" for exporters. Labour's trade spokesperson Damien O'Connor told Morning Report , it was a major fail for the government and noted other leaders managed to cut deals that kept tariffs at lower rates. "This is a disadvantage relative to our competitors," he said. "There is a strong demand for our beef in the US, but this will start to squeeze the market." O'Connor said New Zealand would be competing head-to-head with other countries like Australia, Argentina and Uruguay who all had 10 percent tariffs. "That's going to be tough... That's going to hurt." Kate Acland, chairperson of Beef and Lamb New Zealand agreed competing countries having a lower tariff rate would hurt New Zealand. "I think the key is we're on a different rate to many of our competitors," she told Morning Report , "this is more than $300 million additional hit if it can't be passed on to the consumers." "It will have an impact, this is quite significant." Acland said New Zealand was "one of the good guys" who played by the rules when it came to trade, but perhaps the reason for the higher tariff was that it didn't have much to bring to the negotiating table. "There's quite a queue to negotiate over there, I think the strategy was right, it'd hard to know what we could have done. Kate Acland, chairperson of Beef and Lamb New Zealand said the US needed New Zealand meat exports. Photo: © Clare Toia-Bailey / "Going over there now is the right thing to do." Acland said there was a global shortage of protein, particularly beef, so the US did need New Zealand meat exports. "They need that lean beef so we do have a good story to tell there on the beef side. She believed exporters would be okay, but it did put them at disadvantage. Felicity Roxburgh, director of the International Business Forum agreed New Zealand was now at a disadvantage. She told Morning Report , exporters had done a really good job t absorbing the cost so far, but only time would tell what the impact of 15 percent would be. "We can't invent new markets overnight as an exporter it takes time to invest... There not endless headroom to pass the price to consumers." She said she welcomed Vitalis heading to Washington to try and press New Zealand's case. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn
By Aaron Blake , CNN US President Donald Trump. Photo: AFP Analysis - Back in March, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: "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." Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump's liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove "improper ideology" - an ominous phrase, if there ever was one - from properties like the Smithsonian. Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments. The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum's "legacy content." The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021. Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about "Limits of Presidential Power." And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump's were gone. It wasn't immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump's executive order. The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director. In other words, we don't know all the details of precisely how this went down - including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure. The Smithsonian said in a statement that it was "not asked by any administration" or government official to remove content and that an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump's. But it's all pretty Orwellian. And it's not the only example. Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level. Last week, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics . This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010. Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr Erika McEntarfer's removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work. But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that. He told Newsmax that "we fired her because we didn't believe the numbers today." To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN's Daniel Dale documented Friday. And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it "kind of impetuous" to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong. "It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for," said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump "just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up." Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump's move would make it so people can't trust the data the administration is putting out. And that's the real problem here. It's not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it's the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position. The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump's liking, or else. It's a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked - both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy. What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it? We've certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling: All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics. But if there's a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one. - CNN
