Staff Reports
In a move that has stirred the pot among leftist commentators, President Donald Trump wasted no time in asserting his authority by removing the official portrait of retired General Mark Milley from the Pentagon hallway on inauguration day. This swift action, which came mere moments after President Trump took office, struck a chord with those who remember Milley’s controversial tenure as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Trump’s first term. Critics deride the removal as part of an “erasure of history,” but the context surrounding Milley’s actions during his time in office raises serious questions about such claims.
For starters, there’s the little matter of Milley’s alleged treasonous behavior, which some claim includes communications with China that jeopardized national security. Milley reportedly assured his Chinese counterpart that the U.S. would not launch any military action, a revelation that was particularly unsettling given the tensions between the two nations. On one particularly alarming occasion, Milley went so far as to promise advance notice of any potential U.S. attack to the Chinese general. This was not just an overreach; it was a glaring display of disloyalty that understandably earned him a spot on Trump’s bad side.
ICYMI –>> JD Vance Has Appropriate Reply After 'Journalist' Equates Milley's Portrait Removal to 'Erasing' History https://t.co/TlpR11U0HP
— Sister Toldjah 💙 (@sistertoldjah) January 30, 2025
As the discourse heats up surrounding the removal of Milley’s portrait, the leftist media is quick to leap at the opportunity to portray it as a dangerous precedent. Notably, journalists like Susan Glasser from the New Yorker have taken to their platforms to lament what they see as a threat to historical accountability. Yet, JD Vance, the Vice President, aptly pointed out the hypocrisy here. It wasn’t too long ago that Glasser, and many in her journalistic circle, were champtioning initiatives to erase history altogether by tearing down statues and disregarding early American values in their quest for a sanitized narrative.
The irony does not escape those who engage with the left’s narratives, as the same voices crying foul now were silent when history was being edited to fit a particular ideological agenda. The notion that the removal of Milley’s portrait equates to erasing history is both laughable and deeply misguided. After all, recognizing the consequences of a historical figure’s actions does not necessitate glorification; it often calls for accountability, which Milley is yet to face.
In addition to the portrait’s removal, the ongoing adjustments in Milley’s security situation further underscore the message of accountability being sent by the current administration. With Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth pulling Milley’s security clearance and detail, it becomes increasingly clear that the repercussions for Milley’s alleged misdeeds are manifesting at multiple levels of government. The media’s dramatization of these events seems like an attempt to distract from the bigger picture: that accountability is being restored, and there are standards for leadership, regardless of past affiliations.
The conservative reaction to this conundrum is largely one of bemusement. The double standards displayed by the so-called champions of history highlight a persistent theme in liberal media narratives. When it suits their agenda, the past can be rewritten; when it doesn’t, it’s a crime to even discuss the changes. In this context, the removal of Milley’s portrait serves not only as a symbol of accountability but also as a call to where the real history belongs—with the American people who demand integrity from their leaders.
