In a move that has sent shockwaves through political and historical circles alike, the Trump administration has come under fire for ordering the removal of exhibits and signage related to slavery from national parks across the United States. At the center of the controversy is the 1863 photograph known as "The Scourged Back," a harrowing image depicting Peter—also known as Gordon—an enslaved man whose back is crisscrossed with whip scars. The photograph, long seen as a powerful testament to the brutality of American slavery, was reportedly taken down from a display at Fort Pulaski National Park following a directive from President Trump.
The issue erupted into public view on September 18, 2025, when House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) lambasted Republican colleagues for their silence regarding the Trump administration’s actions. During a heated committee hearing, Huffman declared, "We need to bring up this related issue affecting our parks and public lands that for some wild and unthinkable reason, seems to have become partisan right now. The Trump administration is trying to censor the history told in our national parks and historic sites. This has been happening, they have set it in motion." According to Huffman, the administration’s efforts to remove references to slavery from public displays amount to nothing less than propaganda. "It's un-American," he insisted, urging his colleagues to confront the full complexity of the nation’s past rather than sanitize it for political purposes (as reported by the House Natural Resources Committee press release).
Huffman specifically referenced a recent Secretarial Order that led to the removal of "The Scourged Back" photograph, which depicts the aftermath of brutal violence against enslaved individuals. The photograph, taken in 1863, shows Peter seated shirtless, his back bearing the unmistakable scars of relentless whipping. The story behind the image is as haunting as its visual impact: Peter, an enslaved Black man, escaped from the 3,000-acre plantation of John and Bridget Lyons in Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, in March 1863. After a grueling ten-day journey to a Union Army encampment, Peter underwent a medical examination where the scars were discovered and photographed. The resulting image was widely circulated in the North as a stark indictment of slavery’s cruelty, even appearing in Harper’s Weekly on July 4, 1863, alongside narratives about the treatment of enslaved people (according to The Indian Express).
The Trump administration’s recent actions, however, appear to be reversing this historical reckoning. Following a March 2025 executive order, the Department of the Interior instructed the National Park Service to review and remove any content that "inappropriately disparages Americans past or living." According to a report by the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, which represents over 3,400 current and former National Park Service employees and volunteers, the order also encouraged park visitors to report what they perceived as negative information about Americans being shared in the parks. In practice, most visitors criticized the administration’s stance and voiced support for the preservation of the parks’ historical integrity.
The removal of "The Scourged Back" photograph and other exhibits has been met with fierce criticism from historians, advocacy groups, and former National Park Service employees. The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks condemned the move as a "dangerous and unprecedented" attempt to rewrite history. Meanwhile, the National Parks Conservation Association issued a statement demanding that the true history of slavery not be erased from public memory, warning that such censorship undermines the educational mission of the parks.
The controversy reached a boiling point during the congressional hearing, with Huffman grilling Associate Director Michael Caldwell of the National Park Service about the process behind the removals. Huffman pressed, "How do you feel about it as a career Park Service person? Should a photo like this ever be censored and removed from American history?" Caldwell, a Park Service veteran of over 30 years, responded, "Well, I'm certainly proud of my 30 plus years in the National Park Service." Huffman pushed further, prompting Caldwell to clarify, "Having served in many sites across the country? Um, we're implementing the Secretarial Order and the department, to my knowledge, has not ordered, instructed, anyone to remove content about slavery." Huffman countered, "Yeah, you're wrong about that. Because this really did happen, so I urge you to look into it." The exchange highlighted the confusion and lack of transparency surrounding the decision-making process (as documented in the House Natural Resources Committee record).
Federal Lands Subcommittee Ranking Member Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) also weighed in, demanding clarity from the National Park Service. "Are you telling us that this photo was not taken down at Fort Pulaski? Because I've seen nothing from your department that says that the photo was not taken down. I've read the article that Mr. Tiffany just offered to the record, which purports to say that NPS or rather administrative individuals at NPS, did not ask park staff to take it down. [It] doesn't say that it wasn't taken down. And there are anonymous sources, individuals at least, there's some reporting that suggests from NPS park staff that they were told to take it down and that it was taken down. So, we deserve an answer," Neguse insisted.
The Washington Post, in a September 15, 2025 article entered into the congressional record, reported that Interior Department officials had ordered the removal of the photograph and that as many as 30 signs were flagged for removal at Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. The article further noted that these actions followed President Trump’s explicit order to "scrub" signage and exhibits that could be seen as disparaging to America’s image.
For many, the stakes of this debate are not abstract. The story of Peter, the man depicted in "The Scourged Back," is a microcosm of the broader history of slavery in the United States—a history marked by violence, resilience, and the struggle for recognition. Peter’s own words, recorded during his medical examination, bring the past uncomfortably close: "Ten days from today I left the plantation. Overseer Artayou Carrier whipped me. I was two months in bed sore from the whipping. My master come after I was whipped; he discharged the overseer…I did not shoot any one; I did not harm any one. My master’s Capt. JOHN LYON, cotton planter, on Atchafalya, near Washington, Louisiana. Whipped two months before Christmas."
Historians point out that slavery’s impact on America is not limited to personal stories. Between the 16th and 19th centuries, millions of Africans were brought to the Americas, fueling an economy that relied on forced labor. By 1776, there were around 500,000 enslaved people in America, a number that soared to four million by the Civil War. The profits from slave labor fueled the growth of the cotton industry, which in turn reinforced the power of Southern planters and the institution of slavery itself (as noted by The Indian Express and various historians).
Critics argue that attempts to remove or downplay these painful chapters from public displays risk whitewashing history and diminishing the centrality of slavery in America’s story. "True patriotism means acknowledging our nation's history in its entirety, including our mistakes, so that we can learn and grow from it," Huffman concluded during the hearing. The debate, it seems, is far from over, as lawmakers, historians, and the public grapple with the meaning of history, memory, and national identity.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the fight over how America remembers its past—warts and all—remains a defining struggle of the present.
