What if the most incisive critique of Donald Trump’s presidency isn’t found in political op-eds or court rulings—but in elegantly written essays about George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant? The In Pursuit project, a 250th-anniversary deep dive into American history curated by former National Archivist Colleen Shogan, reveals something fascinating: Even when avoiding direct confrontation, history itself becomes a weaponized mirror. Former presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama—alongside figures like General Stanley McChrystal and Chief Justice John Roberts—have crafted narratives that feel suspiciously timed to the present moment. Personally, I think this isn’t just about commemorating the past; it’s a quiet rebellion against the erosion of democratic norms.\n\n### Why Presidents Write About Presidents\nLet’s address the elephant in the room: Donald Trump and Joe Biden are ‘too fresh’ to be analyzed. But is this exclusion really about historical distance—or a deliberate choice to sidestep the political third rail? Shogan insists the project is ‘nonpartisan,’ yet the very act of omitting the current administration speaks volumes. What many people don’t realize is that by focusing on presidents who’ve had time to calcify into myth, the contributors are free to dissect timeless tensions—power versus restraint, ambition versus duty—without shouting matches.\n\nTake Bush’s essay on Washington. On the surface, it’s a tribute to the ‘No Kings’ ethos. But when Bush writes about Washington’s refusal to cling to power, I can’t help but hear the subtext: This is a rebuke of Trump’s 2020 post-election theatrics. The essay’s release on Presidents’ Day wasn’t accidental. Bush, a Republican, chose to elevate a Founding Father’s humility over a modern precedent. Why? Because sometimes the safest way to criticize a living figure is to praise a dead one.\n\n### The Subversive Power of Subtext\nMcChrystal’s analysis of Ulysses S. Grant is where things get spicy. By highlighting Grant’s resistance to ‘aligning with political factions’ during the Civil War, the general-turned-essayist draws a straight line to Trump’s demand for personal loyalty from officials like Jeff Sessions and Christopher Wray. The phrase ‘law over loyalty’ isn’t just academic jargon—it’s a rallying cry. What makes this particularly fascinating is how military leaders, often seen as apolitical, are now framing historical lessons as ethical guideposts. McChrystal isn’t just dissecting Grant; he’s warning against the militarization of political allegiance.\n\nClinton’s take on Theodore Roosevelt adds another layer. By juxtaposing Roosevelt’s trust-busting populism with his racist policies toward Black and Indigenous communities, Clinton forces us to grapple with the duality of progress and prejudice. This isn’t mere historical accounting—it’s a challenge to the ‘patriotic history’ movement Trump championed. From my perspective, this essay feels like a direct counterpunch to the 1776 Commission: You can’t sanitize the past without erasing its hardest lessons.\n\n### The Archivist Who Refuses to Stay Silenced\nColleen Shogan’s firing by Trump in 2025—no explanation given—casts a shadow over the entire project. Her insistence on ‘nonpartisan’ essays rings slightly hollow when you consider her personal history with the administration. But here’s the twist: By assembling contributors across the ideological spectrum (Karl Rove on McKinley! Michelle Obama on Jackie Kennedy!), Shogan has created a mosaic that’s harder to dismiss as ‘partisan.’ The irony? Trump’s attempt to silence her may have amplified her message.\n\nThe public’s response—over 1 million Substack views—suggests a hunger for substance over spectacle. Yet I wonder: Will this project actually shift perspectives, or just preach to the choir? The essays’ popularity reveals a deeper truth about America’s current identity crisis. We’re desperate for narratives that make sense of the chaos, but too polarized to agree on which stories matter.\n\n### What This All Really Means\nHere’s the thing: These essays aren’t time capsules. They’re grenades. When Obama writes about Lincoln’s ‘moral clarity,’ or Roberts praises Taft’s judicial pragmatism, they’re not just dissecting history—they’re offering blueprints for recovery. The unifying thread? Restraint. Institutions. The quiet strength of rules over rulers.\n\nBut let’s not romanticize the past. As the Franklin Pierce essay reminds us, even ‘forgotten’ presidents can expose rot—Pierce’s pro-slavery compromises and alcoholism weren’t just personal failures; they were symptoms of a democracy unraveling. Sound familiar?\n\nIn the end, In Pursuit succeeds not because it answers questions, but because it forces us to ask better ones. How much of our current turmoil stems from forgetting Washington’s example? Can a nation obsessed with ‘winners and losers’ still embrace the humility of Grant’s ‘law over loyalty’?\n\nPersonally, I think we’re standing at a crossroads where history isn’t just repeating—it’s demanding a response. The real question isn’t whether Trump or Biden will be included in future projects. It’s whether we’ll have the courage to write their legacies with the same honesty the Founders demanded. And if we don’t? Well, as Shogan’s ouster proves, the guardians of memory are always watching—even when power tries to erase them.
