Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

He loved his rallies, so why won't Trump make them part of the historical record?

Opinion

Donald Trump in Louisville, Ky.

Donald Trump's March 2017 address in Louisville is not included in the official record of his public statements, just like all of his other political rallies.

Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)
O'Brien is an assistant professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin.

Public figures live on within the words they are remembered by. To understand the effect they had on history, their words need to be documented.

No one is absolutely sure of exactly what Abraham Lincoln said in his most famous speech, the Gettysburg Address. Five known manuscripts exist, but all are slightly different. Every newspaper story from the day contains a different account.

In the case of modern presidents, for the official record, we rely on transcriptions of all their speeches collected by the national government.

But in the case of Donald Trump, that historical record is likely to have a big gap. Almost 10 percent of his public speeches as president are excluded from the official record. That means a false picture of the Trump presidency is being created in the official record for posterity.

In 1957, the National Historical Publications Commission, a part of the National Archives, recommended developing a uniform system so all materials from presidencies could be archived. They did this to literally save presidential records from the flames: Warren G. Harding's wife claimed to have burned all his records, and Robert Todd Lincoln burned all his father's war correspondence. Other presidents who had their records intentionally destroyed include Chester A. Arthur and Martin Van Buren.

So the government collects and retains all presidential communications — including executive orders, announcements, nominations, statements and speeches. This includes any public verbal communications by presidents, which are also placed in the Compilation of Presidential Documents.

These are part of the official record of any administration, published by the National Archives. In most presidencies, the document or transcript is available a few days to a couple of weeks after any event. At the conclusion of an administration, these documents form the basis for the formal collections of the Public Papers of the President.

As a political scientist, I'm interested in where presidents give speeches. What can be learned about their priorities based on their choice of location? What do these patterns tell us about administrations?

For example, Barack Obama primarily focused on large media markets in states that strongly supported him. Trump went to supportive places as well, including small media markets such as Mankato, Minn., where the airport was not even large enough to accommodate the regular Air Force One.

I found something odd when I began to organize my own database of locations for Trump's speeches. I was born and raised in Louisville, so I pay attention to Kentucky. I knew that on March 20, 2017, he addressed a rally in Louisville — a meandering speech that touched on everything from coal miners to the Supreme Court, China to building a border wall and the "illegal immigrants" who were, he said, robbing and murdering Americans.

But when I looked at the compilation a few months later, I couldn't find the speech. No problem, I thought. They are running behind and will put it in later.

A year later, it was still not there. Furthermore, others were missing. These were not any speeches, only the rallies. By my count, 147 separate transcripts for public speaking events are missing from Trump's official records — just above 8 percent of his presidential addresses.

A 1978 law says administrations must retain "any documentary materials relating to the political activities" of the president or his staff if such activities "relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out" of the president's official or ceremonial duties.

An administration may exclude records that are purely private or don't have an effect on official duties. All public events are included, such as quick comments on the South Lawn, short exchanges with reporters and all public speeches, radio addresses and even public telephone calls to astronauts aboard space shuttles.

But Trump's widely attended rallies, and what he said at them, have so far been omitted from the public record his administration supplied to the Compilation of Presidential Documents. And while historians and the public could make transcripts from publicly available videos, that still does not address the need to have a complete official collection of the 45th president's statements.

Federal law says presidents may exclude "materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of ... duties of the President."

This has been interpreted to mean an administration could omit notes, emails or other documentation from what it sends to the compilation. While many presidents do not provide transcripts for speeches at private fundraising events, rallies covered by America's press corps do not likely fall under these exclusions.

Government documents are among the primary records of who we are as a people.

These primary records speak to Americans directly; they are not what others tell us or interpret for us about our history. The government compiles and preserves these records to give an accurate accounting of the leaders the country has chosen. They provide a shared history in full, instead of an excerpt or quick clip shown in a news report.

Since 1981, the public has legally owned all presidential records. As soon as a president leaves office, the National Archivist gets legal custody of all of them. Presidents are generally on their honor to be good stewards of history. There is no real penalty for noncompliance.

But these documents have so far always been available to the public — and they've been available quickly. Internal documents like memos or email face a rigorous archival review that lasts years before they are even accessible. All public speeches of every president since Bill Clinton have been available online. Until Trump, there was nothing missing.

By removing these speeches, Trump is creating a false perception of his presidency, making it look more serious and traditional than it was.

That Louisville speech, for example, is still among the missing.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Click here to read the original article.

The Conversation


Read More

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less