Category: New York Times

On July 4, the White House posted a lengthy report condemning the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History, accusing it of promoting “extreme ideological activism” while denigrating the nation’s founders and its founding.

Historians have started to reply with failing grades of their own.

The Organization of American Historians, the nation’s largest group of scholars of U.S. history, blasted the report in a statement Monday, accusing the administration of presenting a partisan ideological attack in the guise of historical critique.

“The National Museum of American History interprets America’s history through its vast collection,” it said. “This report’s objective is to punish it for doing that in a way that makes U.S. history accessible to and reflective of all Americans. The report is only the latest chapter in a broader, systematic campaign that now targets an institution that was never meant to answer to any single administration.”

The group accused the administration of ignoring decades of scholarship and trying to “erase the conflict, struggle, and diversity — the complexity — that have always defined the American experience.”

“Make no mistake: The report represents an attempt to turn back the clock to a time when U.S. history was taught as the history of white Christian men who conquered a continent, U.S. military leaders who rarely lost a battle and U.S. presidents who were single-handedly responsible for national greatness, all under the cover of ‘anti-DEI’ and ‘anti-woke’ crusading,” it said.

The White House report presents a wide array of charges, including that the museum promotes transgender issues and engages in “pro-illegal immigrant activism.” But at its core is a complaint that it fails to tell an “inspiring and unifying” national story that focuses on the heroism of the founders and acknowledges Christianity’s “constructive role” in “shaping the nation and its freedoms.”

In a separate email to the New York Times, the president of the Organization of American Historians, Marc Stein, questioned the symbolic timing of the report.

“Released on July 4, 2026, the 250th birthday of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the report is a declaration of independence from history,” he said.

Stein, a history professor at San Francisco State and the author of a recent history of the 1976 Bicentennial, defended the museum’s director, Anthea M. Hartig, a scholar of architectural history and cultural heritage who took over that role in 2019.

The report “mischaracterizes and misrepresents the words of Anthea Hartig, who has consistently worked to educate and inform visitors to the museum with innovative exhibits and inspirational programs,” he said. (Hartig is a past president of the Organization of American Historians.)

Some historians have questioned the accuracy of some of the report’s claims, including that the museum largely ignores the American Revolution and figures such as George Washington.

Sarah Weicksel, the executive director of the American Historical Association, which has more than 10,000 members, noted in an email that the museum includes some “extraordinary” Revolutionary-era objects, like the newly restored gunboat Philadelphia, which it is highlighting for the nation’s 250th anniversary.

Weicksel questioned some of the report’s criticisms of specific wall labels — for example, one about the history of U.S. education that refers to portraits of George Washington that have hung in many classrooms to promote patriotism. The report faults the label for not including biographical information about Washington and why he is important.

“Studies of museum visitation have shown that labels should be presented no higher than an eighth-grade reading level and that most visitors will read no more than a brief label,” she said. “If every label that mentions Washington or Lincoln needs to recount a rote interpretation of their importance to the country, visitors will never learn anything new.”

This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

LA GUAIRA, Venezuela — As postquake efforts in Venezuela start shifting from rescue to recovery, a crack has opened in Venezuelan society, and people are speaking out against their repressive government with a force and openness that has not been seen in years.

Across La Guaira, the northern state hardest hit by the twin quakes, grieving citizens have shouted down police officers and national guard members, accusing them of standing by as civilians and international aid workers dig for the living, and now, the dead.

In interviews, Venezuelans are openly criticizing the country’s ruling party and its leader, Delcy Rodríguez, something that would have been unthinkable just a year ago.

They are also turning their anger toward the Trump administration, which has spent the last few months facilitating economic deals between U.S. companies and Venezuela, and has stood by the government’s management of the disaster.

Inside Venezuela, fears of imprisonment, torture, and forced exile, once powerful incentives for silence, are being pushed aside as feelings of frustration and impotence grow.

“Why would I be afraid?” said José Silva, 47, who on Friday was resting on a sidewalk not far from a giant public housing complex now turned to rubble. Some 700 families had lived inside.

Silva’s clothes were drenched with sweat; it was evening, only partway through his 10th day pulling survivors and bodies from under slabs of concrete. He lashed out at the government: the police were rescuing only their own, he said, and the government had sent only “second rate” tools.

“Why would I be afraid,” to speak out, he said, “if I was born to die?”

This anger runs parallel to growing political tension over the leadership of Rodríguez. When U.S. forces captured her predecessor, Nicolás Maduro, in January and greenlit her ascension from vice president to president, the Trump administration characterized Rodríguez as a force of stability.

Before the quake, President Donald Trump said that she was doing a “very good job” running the country.

But criticism of her government’s response to the disaster, particularly in the critical first 72 hours when victims are most likely to be rescued alive, and the growing fury in the streets, has raised questions about whether she can cement that stability.

The public outrage could also complicate the Trump administration’s strategy of supporting Rodríguez so the United States can benefit from Venezuela’s resources.

Trump’s envoy to Venezuela, John Barrett, has supported Rodríguez, saying in a television interview after the quakes that Washington had “a great deal of confidence” in the Venezuelan authorities.

But in recent days a chorus of hard-line congressional Republicans have doubled down on criticism of her management, calling for political change as soon as possible.

“They’re failing at their job right now,” Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R., Fla.) said in an interview with CNN, calling Rodríguez an “interim dictator.”

Venezuelans have gathered outside the U.S. Embassy, pleading with Barrett to do more to help victims. One man, yelling into news media microphones outside the embassy recently, harangued Barrett for sitting with government officials the United States had once deemed criminals and terrorists, while victims suffered “just two blocks away.”

“The grievance is indeed directed at John Barrett,” he shouted. “Why has he not sat with Venezuelan civil society — the honest ones, the ones who haven’t stolen anything?”

Maria Corina Machado, the country’s popular opposition leader, has been trying to get back into the country, but she does not have a passport, or permission from Rodríguez or the United States, to enter Venezuela.

At a news briefing on Thursday, Rodríguez defended her government’s response to the disaster, saying she had immediately dispatched 4,000 government workers to respond to the quakes, a number that had grown to 19,000.

“What happened in Venezuela on June 24 was a natural tragedy of a scale we never imagined,” she said.

In response to accusations of a poor state response, Rodríguez asserted repeatedly that “media laboratories” were inventing a narrative of chaos.

As evidence of the government’s mobilization, official social media accounts have heavily publicized a handful of state-supported rescues, including one in which dozens of well-equipped emergency workers from Chile rescued a man who had survived a week in the rubble. Rodríguez visited the man at the hospital.

But these videos contrast sharply with the reality in La Guaira, where civilians in sneakers and T-shirts are doing a vast amount of the rescue and recovery work, using shovels and pickaxes and their bare hands to pull friends, neighbors, children, spouses, siblings, and parents from the rubble. Some lack masks to protect themselves from the dust and stench of decomposing bodies.

Rodríguez was widely criticized in Venezuela as out of touch after she was photographed wearing a luxury ski jacket, a logo of the Italian brand Moncler on her arm, to visit quake victims.

“It’s a lie that the government is helping,” Silva said.

Soon after he spoke, darkness fell. Not far way, a group of men had just discovered five bodies in a hole they had dug in the side of the mountain of broken concrete.

The men wrapped the bodies in sheets and then laid them gently on the ground. Survivors looking for relatives crowded around, pulling back the sheets to try to identify the deceased. One was the body of a little girl. The others were unrecognizable.

Thousands of people are now homeless, and the death toll, officially over 3,500, is likely to be far greater. In the coming weeks, the government will be under intense pressure to address an increasingly complex humanitarian crisis.

Outside of another collapsed public housing building, Kimberling León, 39, a resident of the complex, described the government response in the hours and days after the quakes hit.

She was searching for her sons, ages 9 and 13, who she believed were trapped in the rubble.

“The police came by, normal, filming, they didn’t help us,” she said, her voice flat, like a person still in shock.

“We said to them: ‘help us, help us,’ they didn’t come to our aid. We started digging with our hands, but the smoke was too much, the flames rose high, the gas tanks had exploded.”

The second or third day, a shovel and pickax arrived, she said.

“We started digging, digging, digging. We called for machines to help, but they just passed us by, headed to the private buildings” where people could pay, she said.

Silence has been one of the most valuable commodities in La Guaira, as rescuers try to make out the taps and calls of any living that might still be buried in the rubble.

Often, rescuers shoot a fist in the air and call for quiet, instructing drivers to cut motors and people to stop walking.

On a recent day, profanities rained down on the interior ministry workers who rolled past a silent zone with sirens blaring. Civilians banged on the car in anger.

While the quakes have opened space for people to vent years of pent up fury, this public outcry could also spur a crackdown, leading to questions about how the United States would respond to any repression.

The last major social outburst was in 2024, after the ruling party stole a presidential election.

Venezuelan officials halted protests in a matter of days by sending the military into the streets, killing protesters and locking up civilians accused of minor expressions of dissent.

Last week, a volunteer rescuer named Wilmer Cruz who had been filmed speaking out about the government response disappeared, according to human rights groups.

When activists publicly accused the government of retaliating against Cruz, the authorities released him from prison.

Oscar Murillo, who leads Provea, a human rights group, said the arrest highlighted for him that the quakes have not changed the “authoritarian model” in Venezuela.

This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

PROVO, Utah — Outside the state District Court where the preliminary hearing for a man charged with shooting Charlie Kirk was about to begin its first day, Houston-based podcaster Keli Rabon laughed sheepishly when asked if that man, Tyler Robinson, was guilty.

“You’re going to think I’m crazy,” Rabon replied, “but I think Charlie’s still alive.”

Robinson, she went on, “was at most a spotter” at the scene of the crime at Utah Valley University last September. Rabon suggested that Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative activist, was currently at an undisclosed location and that he, along with his wife, President Donald Trump, and other government officials, were potentially involved in the “psy-op.”

Rabon is one of several conspiracy theorists at the Provo courthouse. Camping out overnight to be the first member of the public allowed into the courtroom, Selena Armitage, too, had questions. A true-crime enthusiast living 45 miles away in West Valley City, Armitage said of Kirk’s killing, “I don’t think we’ve even scratched the surface.”

The proceeding this week to weigh evidence against Robinson will seek to impose judicial norms on a case that seems likely to test those standards to the breaking point. Kirk’s death, after all, is the first assassination of a prominent American political figure in the internet age. Any straightforward prosecution of Robinson will require navigating a parallel universe of conspiracy theories turbocharged by social media.

The cramped district courtroom has just 14 seats available to the public, and some will be occupied by people including Rabon and Armitage, who are of the view that the state’s case is far from the complete picture. They will be reinforced by untold watchers of the hearing’s livestream.

The shooting was, in effect, nationally televised. The moment a bullet pierced Kirk’s neck was captured on mobile phones and posted in real time.

As straightforward as the horrific footage was, internet sleuths were not taking it at face value: Where is the exit wound? Where is the blood? Who are the adults in the campus audience? Is one of them gesturing just before the shot? Why do some of the staff members of Turning Point USA, Kirk’s political organization, seem to react without alarm to his slumping body? Why are several men in the crowd wearing maroon shirts?

The first two days of testimony have offered additional fodder. The prosecution’s opening witness, a former Utah Valley special officer named Chris Bagley, testified Monday that his body camera’s battery died while he was investigating the rooftop where police say Robinson fired his lethal shot.

Under cross-examination by defense attorney Kathryn Nester, Bagley also acknowledged that his report did not include any mention of a rifle case that surveillance video showed the shooter carrying. Nor had he identified a plainclothes officer with a badge who had accompanied Bagley to the rooftop. Nor had he secured an empty pistol holster that he saw lying abandoned on the grassy area near where Kirk was killed.

On Tuesday morning, Nester elicited from the lead investigator in the case, David Hull from the State Bureau of Investigation, the facts that no shell casings had been found on the rooftop, while at least two other firearms were discovered at the crime scene below. Hull also admitted that he had not interviewed two individuals who claimed that their own rooftop video featured an individual whose clothing and build did not match those of Robinson.

Such vagaries are common in criminal investigations. Evidence is rarely conclusive, eyewitness accounts seldom 100% reliable, confessions not always ironclad. But such nuance can be lost on the judges and juries of social media.

Right-wing social media influencers have foraged on Kirk’s assassination with particular zeal, chief among them Candace Owens, a former Turning Point USA star turned antagonist who has devoted dozens of podcast episodes to the subject.

“I feel confident stating that Tyler Robinson did not murder Charlie Kirk,” Owens said recently. In her view, Robinson was “a total patsy” who was not even on campus that day.

Owens has at various times implicated the victim’s widow, Erika Kirk, Turning Point USA staff, and even the Israeli government, but only with tantalizing questions and dots for her audience to connect, not a true alternative scenario.

Erika Kirk and other Turning Point officials have expressed outrage, but privately, they have acknowledged the far right’s susceptibility to such theories, owing to a suspicion of traditional news sources and hostility toward the left.

Kirk himself regularly argued that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and that Democrats were purposely opening the border to reshape the electorate.

Such theories may lack evidence, but they have an audience. By far the biggest media presence at the Utah preliminary hearing is Fox News Channel, which has more than a dozen employees in Provo. And as Rabon acknowledged outside the courtroom, conspiracy theories are popular — some more than others. Her podcast was eight months old and already had 7,500 YouTube subscribers, a figure that she said would be higher if she were to embrace a more alluring conspiracy theory, such as the belief that Kirk was killed by an incendiary device in his microphone.

“I’m doing ‘fake death,’” Rabon said. “If I was doing ‘exploding microphone,’ the algorithms would like me better.”

This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

LONDON — Nigel Farage, the leader of the populist right-wing Reform UK party, on Tuesday said he would resign his seat in Parliament and run for reelection in his Clacton seat to answer criticism of his financial affairs.

The unexpected move comes after recent revelations about gifts and financial support received by Farage, both from a cryptocurrency billionaire and from a political ally who was once convicted of fraud in the United States.

“I have decided that the people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions,” Farage said in a statement that was broadcast on his party’s YouTube channel. “This will be a ‘people versus the establishment’ by-election,” he added, referring to a special parliamentary election.

The success of Farage, whose anti-immigration party has led in opinion polls for more than a year, was instrumental in destabilizing Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who announced his resignation last month.

But Farage has suffered several setbacks lately amid growing scrutiny of his financial affairs.

In May, it emerged that he had received an undisclosed gift of 5 million pounds (about $6.7 million) from a cryptocurrency billionaire, Christopher Harborne, a Briton who lives in Thailand.

Farage argues that the gift was unconditional, was made before he won a seat in Parliament in the general election in 2024, and there was no requirement to declare it. However, Daniel Greenberg, Parliament’s standards commissioner, has opened an investigation into whether the money should have been made public under rules that require new lawmakers to declare some financial benefits received in the 12 months before their election.

Over the weekend, the Sunday Times of London reported that Farage had separately failed to declare benefits provided by a political ally, George Cottrell, a convicted fraudster who served prison time in the United States.

According to the newspaper, Cottrell’s support included providing social media staff members who worked for Farage in the year before he was elected, as well as the use of a property rented by Cottrell near Buckingham Palace.

Farage has insisted he followed all of the rules and has accused journalists of “despicable behavior” and of hounding his family.

However, in his statement Tuesday, Farage suggested that the Sunday Times article had now triggered a second investigation, saying that, “Despite the fact that many of the things that were written in the article were inaccurate or irrelevant, yet another standards investigation is underway.”

If Greenberg finds that the gift from Harborne should have been declared, Farage might, under British parliamentary rules, have been suspended from Parliament and forced to fight for reelection in his parliamentary constituency of Clacton, in eastern England. So the announcement Tuesday effectively preempts that possible outcome, although it would not stop the findings being published.

Farage, a highly effective campaigner and a longtime disrupter of British politics, will likely be confident of winning the seat again, having achieved a majority of 8,405 votes in the 2024 general election. Polling suggests he remains popular in the area.

However, even a convincing victory there would not guarantee an end to the scrutiny of Farage and his finances as he attempts to convince the country he should become its next prime minister. The next general election must take place by 2029.

Reform UK has recently faced competition on its right flank from a far-right party called Restore Britain, which was founded by Rupert Lowe, once an ally of Farage, after a bitter public rift with him.

Despite Reform’s success in May in local elections in Wales, Scotland, and British municipalities in England, the party has also suffered some reverses. Last month it lost a crucial special parliamentary election in Makerfield, in northwest England, which was won by Andy Burnham, who is expected to succeed Starmer.

Earlier this year, it lost in another special election in nearby Gorton and Denton to an insurgent Green Party. And last year, it suffered a similar fate in Caerphilly in Wales, in a special election to the Welsh parliament, which was won by the center-left nationalist Plaid Cymru party.

In national polls, Reform’s support has fallen from about 30% last year to about 25% now, with Labour and the Conservatives around 20% each.

This article originally appeared in the New York Times.