“We believe the public should enter the museum fully equipped with the information needed,” the letter said, “to evaluate whether to invest their time viewing these exhibits and programming.”

The museum’s director, Anthea M. Hartig, has contested the thrust of a July 4 White House report that accused her of “radical activist ideology” and the museum of undermining “faith in American institutions.”

Though the letter said that the language of the signs had not been finalized and gave no installation timeline, it described some of the topics they were intended to address, all of which had been outlined in the White House report.

For example, the letter said the signs should “ensure parents bringing young children to the museum are equipped to protect the well-being of their children” regarding exhibits that “present ideological viewpoints inconsistent with biology, including ideologies that sex is not binary, that biological men can be women and that biological men should be permitted to compete in women’s sports.”

Mr. Burgum’s letter said a copy had also been sent to Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon.

You can read more using the gift link.

More on Trump Smithsonian demands from Kelsey Ables at The Atlantic (gift link).

A person familiar with the plans described some of the preparations to me. Although the Park Service has an idea of the physical structure of the signs, what the signs will actually say and who is writing the text remains a mystery to people in the agency working on them, said the person, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record. The letter from Burgum says that the signs are not finalized, but it offers a preview of what they might look like, describing a number of things “visitors should know” before they enter the museum. Burgum, whose department includes the Park Service, extensively quotes the museum’s director, Anthea Hartig, and criticizes outgoing Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch, seeking to frame both as ideologues. The letter also calls out exhibitions and materials that have touched on groups the administration has gone after, such as undocumented immigrants and transgender Americans.

“The informational signage therefore will provide visitors with important context about the exhibits they are about to encounter and the personal viewpoints that the curators of the exhibits are seeking to advance,” the letter says. It goes on to justify the move, echoing a 162-page report on the museum released by the White House and asserting that the museum is pushing “ideologies that distract from a coherent and accurate presentation of America’s story.” Burgum adds, “This may be the first instance in which executive branch intervention of this nature has become Necessary.”

Trump also wants a giant statue of George Washington installed.

The Smithsonian, which is partially federally funded, has historically operated independently, has its own governing body, and is regarded in the wider museum world as measured in its approach. The institution has been heading off threats and criticism from the Trump administration since March 2025. Recently, the administration’s attention has turned to the American-history museum, which Trump made a number of curatorial demands of on social media this past Friday, including insisting that it remove an abstract sculpture and erect a 30-foot-tall George Washington statue in its place. Although the Trump administration has accused the Smithsonian, and specifically the American-history museum, of not being patriotic enough, the museum’s leadership has pointed to the abundance of patriotic material on display inside—368 objects and 340 labels on the founding era; 54 George Washington mentions, according to Hartig—and has maintained that telling the American story in its full complexity is a crucial part of its role.

Use the gift link to read more if you’re interested.

This is breaking news. Speaker Mike Johnson just sent House members home again in order to avoid a vote on impeaching Pete Hegseth. Yesterday Rep. Thomas Massie read articles of impeachment on the House floor. Today he tried to force a vote.

ABC News: Rep. Thomas Massie forcing vote on Pete Hegseth’s impeachment.

Outgoing Republican Rep. Thomas Massie seized the House floor for more than an hour Tuesday afternoon, launching a long-shot effort to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stemming from his controversial administration over the Pentagon, including the war in Iran.

Rep Thomas Massie introduces a resolution to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, September 15, 2026.

After sending a news release announcing his intent to impeach Hegseth, Massie quickly appeared on the floor where he stood for more than 67 minutes reading the sweeping 34-page resolution with eight articles of impeachment aloud.

“Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America,” Massie read from the resolution, contending that Hegseth will “remain a threat to civilians and the laws of war, the integrity of United States diplomacy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law.”

“Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States,” the resolution states….

The articles of impeachment against Hegseth include ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties, administering an “unlawful war” in Yemen, ordering extrajudicial killings, suppressing free speech and kidnapping a sovereign leader — alluding to the U.S. capture of Nicolas Maduro early this year.

“Frankly, I was concerned that Mike Johnson would end Congress again, like shorten even our already truncated work period if he found out I was doing.

And that’s exactly what Johnson did today. Malcolm Ferguson at The New Republic: House Cancels Votes to Avoid Embarrassment Over Hegseth Impeachment.

“Members are further advised that upon completion of today’s legislative business, votes are no longer expected in the House tomorrow, September 17th,” a message from the office of House Majority Whip Tom Emmer read. “The last votes for the week are expected at approximately 4:45 p.m. this afternoon. This is a change from the previously announced schedule.”

The House will now move up votes on cutting Environmental Protection Agency regulations to Wednesday.

The vote the House GOP is most notably avoiding regards outgoing Republican Representative Thomas Massie’s eight articles of impeachment against Hegseth for his handling of the Iran war and other “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Massie’s impeachment articles focused on Hegseth’s “waging the Iran war despite no declaration of war, statutory authorization, attack on the United States, or imminent threat,” and continuing to attack Iran after the War Powers Resolution expired. They also cited Hegseth’s suppression of Democratic Senator Mark Kelly’s right to free speech, initiating an unlawful war in Yemen, and “ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties.” Massie said he hid his privileged resolution, which forces a vote within 48 hours, from House leadership.

Read more at the NYT link. (The Times is giving subscribers unlimited gift links now.)

How about some good news? There’s a new Times/Sienna poll out that looks good for Democrats.

Nate Cohn at The New York Times (gift link): A ‘Blue Wave’ May Be Building, but How High?

Today’s New York Times/Siena poll finds that the conditions for a so-called wave in November’s midterm elections might be coming into place. The only question is whether — and where — Democrats will be able to ride it.

Overall, Democrats lead Republicans, 51 percent to 43 percent, among likely voters on the generic ballot question, which asks voters which party they will support for Congress in their district.

That’s “blue wave” territory. At least in terms of the national vote, the Democratic margin in the poll — 8.5 points — would almost exactly match the party’s 8.6-point margin in 2018. And it would exceed the winning margins for the party out of power in other recent wave elections, like in 1994, 2006 and 2010.

If, in the end, this election does prove to be a blue wave, it will be easy to explain. Historically, the party out of power fares well in midterm elections, and especially when the president is unpopular. The poll finds that President Trump’s approval rating is just 38 percent among likely voters — lower than any president heading into a midterm election since George W. Bush in 2006.

As my colleague Carl Hulse recently pointed out, there are a lot of similarities between Mr. Trump’s predicament today and Mr. Bush’s back in 2006. Mr. Bush was in a quagmire in Iraq and dogged by high gas prices. Today, Mr. Trump has just a 31 percent approval rating on the war in Iran, and a 28 percent rating on the cost of living.

Whether Democrats can translate these enormous national advantages into control of the Senate and a large House majority is a more complicated question. To win the Senate, Democrats will need to win at least two seats where Mr. Trump won by at least 11 points in the last election. That’s really tough, even in a wave year.

Here again, 2006 offers a useful comparison: To flip the Senate, Democrats needed to win at least a few seats in states where Mr. Bush had won by at least eight points in the previous election. In the end, they pulled it off — but only barely, including two extremely narrow victories in Montana and Virginia. Without a few fortunate breaks in those states, those races could have gone the other way — along with the Senate.

The national environment may have been great for Democrats, but a Senate win was far from inevitable.

There’s still plenty of time for Trump to alienate voters.

That’s all for me today. What’s on your mind?