Controlling the narrative

Donald Trump’s second presidency in the United States has been marked by a series of outrageous statements and actions that have gripped world attention. Some, like the demand that Canada becomes the 51st state, will never happen, others, like the threat to invade Greenland, are unlikely to happen and, on some, President Trump will change his mind, as he often does. Regardless, they provide a distraction to other acts that, whilst equally outrageous, received less attention, even if they form part of Trump’s core strategy. In this category, one can put the dismissal of Carla Hayden as the Librarian of Congress and Colleen Shogan as Archivist of the United States. Their replacement with Trump loyalists is a signal of Trump’s determination to control the narrative about his presidency, define what is truth and what is a lie, and make sure future generations will depend on a doctored history.

The Library of Congress is a venerable American institution renowned for its integrity. It is not only the library of the legislative arm of government, the US Senate and House of Representatives, it is the main depository library in the United States. The dismissal of its head Carla Hayden, shocked the American intellectual elite. Carla Hayden was the 14th Librarian of Congress and the first woman and the first African-American, to hold the post. She was hailed for making the Library of Congress more accessible.

The Library of Congress
The Library of Congress is the largest library in the world, with millions of books, films and video and audio recordings, photographs, newspapers, maps and manuscripts in its collections.

In her message on the Library website before her dismissal, Carla Hayden says that “the Library preserves and provides access to a rich, diverse and enduring source of knowledge to inform, inspire and engage you in your intellectual and creative endeavours”.

The Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford is a sister library to the Library of Congress and also a depository library. Writing in the Financial Times on 12 May, Richard Ovenden, Director of the Bodleian Library, said that “the removal of Hayden and Shogan demonstrates the exercise of arbitrary power, asserting control over knowledge. Both are the first women to lead their respective institutions, and both are committed to reaching all parts of the nation they were appointed to serve. If the ideologically motivated censorship of collections and the recent mass deletion of government websites is anything to go by, the Trump administration is intent on removing swaths of knowledge from public circulation”.

Both the Library of Congress in Washington D.C., and the Bodleian Library at Oxford University, are much more than the depository of books, though there are certainly plenty of books in both places. They are centres of knowledge, including of the sort you are unlikely to find anywhere else.

I had a small experience of this whilst researching my thesis at Oxford University. I worked every day at the Bodleian Library surrounded by books and history. At some, I came across a handwritten note by Julian Amery at a time in 1972 when he had just been appointed Minister in the Foreign Office. I knew that the note was about the Sultan of Oman, a long-time personal friend of Amery, who had just died. In 1970 he had been deposed by the British who felt that he was obstructing their plans to modernise Oman. The problem was that Amery’s handwriting was awful, and I just couldn’t read what Minister Amery had written. I consulted my supervisor and various other people but none could. Then someone suggested I consult someone at the Bodleian. I made an appointment and duly made my way up a long, spiral flight of stairs, until right at the top, in the attic, I found an old lady and I explained my predicament. “They had a terrible handwriting these Ministers”, she told me before reading out the text, which until a moment before had been unreadable. Thus was my small, modest experience, of being exposed to the knowledge that is part of the Bodleian. The Library of Congress is similar, though on a larger scale. This is why many American intellectuals are shocked to hear of the dismissal of Carla Hayden, as the Librarian of Congress

On hearing the news, American Library Association President Cindy Hohl wrote, “I am deeply disappointed in last night’s decision by President Trump to fire Dr. Carla Hayden from her position as Librarian of Congress. I salute Dr. Carla Hayden, a wise and faithful steward of the Library of Congress – the library she has called our 'national treasure.' Dr Hayden’s abrupt and unjust dismissal is an insult to the scope and breadth of work Dr Hayden has undertaken in her role leading the Library of Congress.” She adds that “by throwing open the doors of the venerable Library of Congress to welcome everyone, Dr Hayden has revealed what the highest library in the land and what every library is: a bastion of knowledge and a beacon of opportunity.”

The appointment of Carla Hayden’s successor offers us a glimpse of what Trump is trying to achieve. He is Todd Blanche, the lawyer who represented Donald Trump during his 2024 criminal trial.

Donald Trump is intent that history be written to serve his purpose. His control of the Archive of the United States and the Library of Congress are steps in this direction. The Democratic Party is still shell-shocked by Trump’s victory and is, at least for the moment, unable to stop Trump’s excesses. The American people have to do this themselves before their history is rewritten.

Please click here to download this week's Monday Commentary.

Source: Dr Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS Europe and Managing Editor of commonspace.eu. 
Photo source: Library of Congress Francis Chung/POLITICO

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners. 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)