Here are the signs the Trump administration removed from Independence Park

Following last year’s review, every sign has been removed from the President’s House site.

National Park Service workers remove the displays at the President’s House site in Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia on Thursday, Jan. 22, 2026. More than a dozen displays about slavery were flagged for the Trump administration’s review, with the House coming under particular scrutiny.
Elizabeth Robertson / Staff Photographer
Published

On Thursday, the National Park Service dismantled exhibits about slavery at the President’s House in Independence National Historical Park. This follows orders by President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to remove content at national parks that “inappropriately disparage” the U.S.

As part of a review ordered by Trump’s administration in August 2025, National Park Service employees flagged many issues across seven panels in and around the President’s House site.

Here are some of the signs that were removed and why they were flagged:

  • The President’s House site has a complex history dating back to a 1997 plan for redesigning Independence Mall that did not include its memorialization and according to Inquirer archives, the National Park Service initially did not want to have the site studied. Local Black activists and historians led an effort to excavate the site and create an exhibit that made enslaved individuals who lived and worked in the President’s House a focal point of the historic monument. Developed through a collaboration between the activists, the NPS and others, the President’s House opened to the public in 2010.

  • A section on a panel that describes the history of the President’s house was flagged for mentioning that history and showing “negativity towards the National Park Service.” Seth C. Bruggeman, a professor of history at Temple University, noted that the site is now important not only for its subject matter, but because of the power of the community members who fought for it and helped develop it.

    “Trump can change whatever sign he likes,” said Bruggeman, “but that won't erase the memory of Philadelphians coming together to insist on an honest reckoning with our past.”

  • Most other passages that were flagged seemingly respond to the “disparagement of historical figures” part of Trump’s order. On the same panel, National Park employees flagged the use of the words “profoundly disturbing” to describe Washington transporting enslaved people between Virginia and Pennsylvania.

  • story continues after advertisement

  • A panel describing life under slavery was flagged three times. NPS comments questioned whether George Washington’s motivation to have a steward sign an advertisement seeking the return of a slave who escaped the President’s house could be known.

    Cory Young, an assistant history professor at the University of Iowa and a scholar of abolition and slavery in the American North, says that historians are generally in agreement that Washington was very aware of his public image and the fact that he was setting precedent for future American presidents.

  • Descriptions of the treatment of enslaved individuals at the hands of slaveholders and how Africans were kidnapped and brought to America were also flagged. These passages don’t appear to have been flagged for any factual inaccuracies. It’s possible they were flagged because descriptions of brutality against slaves could be interpreted as reflecting negatively on past Americans.

  • An illustration depicting Washington signing the Fugitive Slave Act while a group of white men are depicted with clubs and guns shooting at Black men was also flagged for review. Similar to the previous panel, park comments don’t dispute any facts depicted in the illustration.

  • A wayside sign introducing the President’s House Site was flagged for saying that the Adams household “possibly” hired enslaved people to work in the President’s house. While we know the Adams household hired African Americans, due to scarce documentation about slavery during the early American Era, it’s difficult for historians to say with certainty whether any of them were enslaved.

  • A panel titled The Dirty Business of Slavery was also flagged twice. Text describing the growth of the enslaved population as a result of both natural increase, but also as a result of rape and forced breeding, was flagged. NPS staff flagged the text, but didn’t include any concerns about facts depicted.

  • An entry in the Slavery Timeline on this panel was also flagged because an image near the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act entry references the “much harsher” 1850 Fugitive Slave Law. Young believes this is more a layout issue than an issue with historical accuracy as both images are labeled correctly and the timeline later contains an entry for the 1850 law.

  • story continues after advertisement

  • A panel about the executive branch was flagged for review twice. First, NPS comments appear to take issue with the panel’s interpretation of why Southern delegates favored a site along the Potomac River for the new capital city. The panel doesn’t explicitly say that Southern delegates preferred this location because Maryland and Virginia were both slave states, but might have been flagged because of the association of slavery with the creation of the new nation’s capital.

  • The panel was also flagged because “it gives no background as to why” neither John Adams nor George Washington commented on petitions or publications protesting slavery. According to Young, it wasn’t common at the time for the president to speak about slavery as a political issue in public speeches or petitions.

  • National Park employees submitted three items for review on a panel describing the people who lived in the President’s House, both free and enslaved. According to NPS comment, “the timeline calls out everyone who lived there and who was a slaveholder. No other descriptors are used.” However, the panel also describes Mary Lawrence Masters as a wealthy widow of the former mayor and describes Robert Morris additionally as a financier. George Washington is not explicitly described as a slaveholder nor as president, though his roles as both are described elsewhere on this panel and throughout the exhibit.

  • The NPS also flagged a subtitle on the panel for review: Washington’s Deceit. Saying that “The section speaks of Washington secretly rotating his enslaved laborers between Mt. Vernon and the President’s House in order to take advantage of a loophole in Pennsylvania’s abolition law. The panel demonstrates that he was secretive, but not deceitful.”

    NPS staffers didn’t question the factual basis of the panel. Young noted that while historians might never be able to know if George Washington felt as if he was being deceitful or secretive, they do know that by rotating slaves between Pennsylvania and Virginia, Washington was attempting to avoid freeing any of his slaves under Pennsylvania’s gradual abolition law.

  • NPS also flagged panel text regarding Martha Washington that says “evidence suggests that she accepted the institution of slavery,” noting that the panel does not direct to any evidence. Use of the word “accepted” doesn’t explicitly suggest that she advocated for or against slavery publicly. The panel describes her inheriting slaves and passing at least some enslaved individuals down to her children after her death.

  • story continues after advertisement

Staff Contributors

  • Design, Development, and Reporting: Aileen Clarke
  • Editing: Sam Morris and Ariella Cohen
  • Photography: Tom Gralish
  • Photo Editing: Frank Wiese
  • Digital Editing: Patricia Madej

Subscribe to The Philadelphia Inquirer

Our reporting is directly supported by reader subscriptions. If you want more journalism like this story, please subscribe today

Subscribe