Judge Bars Further Changes to George Washington’s Philadelphia House; The New York Times, February 2, 2026

Mattathias Schwartz, The New York Times; Judge Bars Further Changes to George Washington’s Philadelphia House

The Interior Department removed placards and videos about Washington’s involvement with slavery. A new court ruling blocks further changes, for now.

"A federal judge in Philadelphia ordered the National Park Service not to make further changes to the President’s House Site, where George Washington lived as the head of the fledgling U.S. government, as she considers a lawsuit filed by the City of Philadelphia.

At a daylong hearing on Friday, the city argued that the Park Service was obliged to restore plaques and videos commemorating nine enslaved people who served Washington’s household on the site. Those items were removed by the Trump administration as part of a broader effort to use its control of the park system to reframe American history by eliminating materials that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.”

Judge Cynthia M. Rufe, who was appointed by President George W. Bush to Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, expressed deep skepticism about President Trump’s effort on Friday. She called its purported legal basis “cavalier” and the prospect of further changes “frightening.”

On Monday, according to the case docket, she inspected the removed displays, which the government has said are being held in storage at the National Constitution Center. Judge Rufe’s Monday order stops short of mandating that the displays be put back up, as the city requested...

The case before Judge Rufe turns on whether the Interior Department, which includes the Park Service, was obliged to consult with the city before removing the slavery-related materials. Those kinds of consultations took place when Independence National Historical Park was first created and during years of planning for the slavery memorial at the President’s House leading up to its 2010 dedication. The city argues that while the site is Park Service property, some portions of a decades-long series of agreements between the federal government and the city governing its operation remain in force.

Justice Department lawyers have argued that the city is trying to infringe on the federal government’s right to free speech in deciding how the history of the site should be described."