Guest Opinion
What should we expect (or want) to learn at National Parks?
A federal district court in Massachusetts has granted an injunction for the Association of National Park Rangers and others against the Secretary of the 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 ordered the signs to be replaced nationwide.
All of this comes in the context of the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
How Far Can the President Go to Implement Policy?
Executive orders are directives from the president that determine how federal law and regulations will be organized and implemented through departments and agencies. These are areas where presidential policy can be implemented so long as it does not conflict with federal law. Regulations may also be shaped by executive action, but they must remain within the scope of authority granted by Congress through statute.
In March 2025, President Trump signed an executive order entitled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” The stated purpose and policy of the directive was to shift federal policy from that of previous administrations. The order states:
“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.”
Examples and planned actions in the executive order are matters a president may direct within an administration. Further into the order, however, is a caveat that all actions must be carried out in accordance with applicable law.
So What Happened Between Signing the EO and Implementing It?
The litigation was brought by the 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.
Particularly at issue was Independence National Historical Park, where exhibits depicting the lives of enslaved people at President George Washington’s Philadelphia residence were removed. The executive order specifically named the park for “improve[ment]” of its infrastructure, but implementation of the directive resulted in the removal of nonconforming exhibits in a way that erased discussion of those subjects altogether. The executive order states:
“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.”
To the dismay of many historians, nine of roughly a dozen poster-style exhibits about the lives of enslaved people at Washington’s Philadelphia residence were removed, leaving large gaps on the walls. The visual impact of the removals made the erasure difficult to ignore.
Soon after the executive order was issued, the City of Philadelphia sued the National Park Service to stop the removal of the exhibits. In February, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered the federal government to restore the exhibits.
It is rarely a good sign when a judge opens an opinion with a quotation from George Orwell’s 1984. The court 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.”
The Law on National Park Exhibits
The court examined several factors in determining whether the National Park Service could be temporarily restrained while the case proceeds. After resolving questions of jurisdiction and procedure, the court considered whether the agency’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious.”
Under administrative law, agencies must provide a reasoned explanation when reversing policy. Courts generally require some analysis—such as changed facts, new information, or other justification. In this case, the court found that merely citing the executive order was insufficient.
The court also considered whether public opinion had shifted against exhibits presenting difficult aspects of American history. Relying on evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, the court devoted substantial discussion to polling data indicating the opposite:
“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.’ … This opinion cuts across race, age, and educational background, with the majority of each demographic group surveyed supporting the presentation of an unbiased history.”
The court therefore concluded that the agency’s actions were likely arbitrary and capricious.
The court also considered whether the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. One factor was whether any laws had been violated. The court found a likelihood of success because of the agency’s failure to properly change policy through required procedures and because its actions likely conflicted with applicable National Park Service statutes.
Several statutes shaped the legal framework governing national park interpretation and exhibits. Courts begin with the agency’s organic statute—the law defining its authority—and then examine more specific legislation. The National Park Service Centennial Act was particularly important because it requires “high-quality” interpretive programs and defines what that means. As the court noted:
“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.’ 54 U.S.C. § 100803(2).”
When Congress speaks through legislation, the executive branch cannot override those requirements simply because policy priorities have changed. Congress legislates on behalf of the people, and statutes take precedence over executive directives.
Why the Massachusetts Order Was Different
The Massachusetts district court’s order applies nationwide, making it especially significant. In describing the National Park Service’s actions, the court cited several examples involving Native American 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 and 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.”
Final Thoughts
There were many ways this could have been handled. A presidential emphasis on patriotism could have been incorporated into National Park Service interpretation without removing or obscuring historical facts.
Certainly, some exhibits reflected priorities of previous administrations. At the same time, many were grounded in collaborative work with historians and supported by extensive historical documentation. Interpreting history without hiding its difficult chapters would have advanced the goal of patriotism while offering visitors a fresh perspective.
Most importantly, the National Park System should work in consultation with those who possess the deepest knowledge of these histories, including Tribal Nations, historians, and descendant communities.
To read more articles by Professor Sutton go to: https://profvictoria.substack.com/
Professor Victoria Sutton (Lumbee) is a law professor on the faculty of Texas Tech University. In 2005, Sutton became a founding member of the National Congress of American Indians, Policy Advisory Board to the NCAI Policy Center, positioning the Native American community to act and lead on policy issues affecting Indigenous communities in the United States.
