Trump Administration and Philadelphia Battle Over Slavery Memorial

In a recent podcast interview with The New York Post’s “Pod Force One,” President Trump revealed his consideration of Todd Blanche as the next full-time Attorney General. Trump expressed confidence in Blanche, stating, “We put him as acting, and he’s done a very good job.” When asked about Governor Ron DeSantis as a candidate, Trump clarified DeSantis was not currently under consideration.

The Trump administration is involved in a legal battle with the city of Philadelphia over a slavery memorial. The central issue is the administration’s power to modify a memorial dedicated to enslaved individuals who lived at George Washington’s Philadelphia residence during the 18th century. The National Park Service, following an executive order from Trump, removed certain placards and video displays from this site, which aimed to address America’s historical narrative. Philadelphia sued over these changes, prompting a judge’s order to restore the site, followed by an appeal from the Trump administration.

During the appeals court hearing, Justice Department attorney Gregory in den Berken argued the federal government’s rights to make adjustments to the site, including potentially removing the names of nine enslaved people on a stone monument. He emphasized these changes were “curatorial” in nature, aligning with an agreement from 2006 when Philadelphia ceded the property rights to the federal government.

The memorial forms part of Independence Historical Park where George Washington served as the president of the United States before relocating to the city that bears his name. Two of the three judges on the panel showed skepticism towards the extent of power the Trump administration claimed. Judge L. Felipe Restrepo questioned whether the government sought “unfettered discretion” over the site. Attorney in den Berken attempted to assure the judges that the National Park Service will maintain acknowledgment of slavery’s role in the site’s history.

The legal arguments primarily focused on detailed contractual aspects between the city and federal government governing the site. Over 100 observers attended the session, witnessing lawyers for both entities debate Philadelphia’s potential “residual” rights in influencing the site. Cara McClellan, representing groups allied with the city, underscored the symbolic importance of the case, likening a total removal of the memorial to a hypothetical dismantling of the Lincoln Memorial before the bicentennial.

Judge Peter J. Phipps, a Trump appointee, showed sympathy towards the government’s assertion that the slavery narrative could continue without restoring all site features. Meanwhile, Judge Thomas M. Hardiman suggested that mentioning slavery remains necessary at the site, balancing Philadelphia’s legal stance with the government’s pledges of moderation.

In den Berken refuted claims the administration rewrites history at the site, clarifying omission isn’t synonymous with falsification or denial of factual events.