It has been claimed that some books sold in national parks and monument areas in the US were removed from sale due to a new screening process by the administration aimed at presenting history in a more positive light. At the center of the debate are a book written about slavery and the Civil War and the federal agencies' perspective on the past.
The author described that his own book was also pulled from shelves during this process and called it censorship. The book narrates the quest for freedom by enslaved people and developments that influenced the course of the Civil War.
Highlights
- The claim arose with the review of some history books in national park and monument stores in the US.
- The author argued that his book about slavery and the Civil War was removed from sale.
- The review process was alleged to aim at filtering out content considered "negative" about American history.
- The author denied in a text that the Department of the Interior and National Park Service directly ordered removals.
- In another correspondence, it was stated that retail products should be checked for alignment with the administration's ideological goals.
The process that started the censorship debate
According to the accounts, in May 2025, during the first months of Donald Trump's second term, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued an order titled "Making American History True and Rational." This order called on those responsible for national parks and monuments to review "inappropriate content" in the areas and remove signs considered "derogatory" about America's past.
Following this approach, it was reported that visitors at Independence Hall in Philadelphia would encounter very little information about enslaved people owned by the founding generations, some historical details at the Manzanar camp for Japanese Americans during the war period became invisible, and information about sea level rise threatening Charleston Harbor at Fort Moultrie National Monument was removed.
The order was said to cover not only exhibition panels but also books sold in monument and park stores. It was also alleged that some works about Malcolm X and other Black leaders were removed.
Why was the book at Fort Monroe targeted?
The work at the center of the debate was a book set at Fort Monroe in Virginia, narrating the process leading to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. The book describes enslaved people escaping to freedom during the Civil War and their movement toward the Union side, affecting the military balance of the war.
The author argued that this story should appear compatible even with the most conservative definition of "patriotic content." However, he suggested that officials might have hesitated because the book cover features members of the U.S. Colored Troops and the text explicitly discusses slavery.
The author said he asked the National Park Service whether his book was censored, and the agency told him no direct removal or ban order was given. It was also reported that Eastern National did not respond despite multiple calls.
November correspondence and review directive
Another element the author highlighted was a letter dated November 25, 2025. This letter requested that all retail products at sales points operated by associations and concessionaires cooperating with the parks be reviewed for alignment with the administration's ideological goals.
The letter stated that products found not compliant with this order should be immediately removed from sale. In a leaked audit database, it was alleged that books on store shelves at places like Yosemite National Park, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail were under review.
An anonymous official reportedly working on the historic route from Selma to Montgomery was said to have added works like The 1619 Project, which narrate the origins of slavery, to the removal list with an "excessive caution" approach.
The author's message: History is narrowing
The author argued that this is not an explicit direct censorship but an indirect pressure environment creating fear and hesitation. According to him, even if a high-level ban order is not explicitly given, lower-level managers may make harsher decisions fearing career risks.
The text emphasized that widespread layoffs and dismissals in federal public institutions have increased this hesitation. It was claimed that this atmosphere narrows voices heard in America's most important historic sites and excludes critical parts of the collective story.
The author also recalled the "gag rule" in history. This rule, which banned discussion of slavery in Congress between 1835 and 1844, was lifted on constitutional grounds; however, those nine years contributed to the spread of the institution of slavery and brought the country closer to war.
Context: The debate is based on the similarity between America's past attitude of suppressing anti-slavery publications and the current practices alleged to control the historical narrative. The author's objection is directed at making complex and painful chapters invisible for the sake of a "positive" historical narrative.
The harshest criticism in the text was that the "happy and peaceful slaves" narrative advocated by the South does not reflect reality. According to the author, this propaganda collapsed not through open debate but through enslaved people joining the Union ranks for freedom during the Civil War.
