One of World War II's most decorated submarines will be docked in Wisconsin over the next several months so it can undergo millions of dollars in repairs.
The post World War II submarine undergoes repairs at Wisconsin shipyard appeared first on WPR.
For Montgomery, Rib Mountain’s appeal goes beyond its height. Its preserved ripple marks and views across the surrounding landscape offer a rare chance to contemplate the immense span of geological time.
The post Central Wisconsin’s Rib Mountain offers a window into deep time appeared first on WPR.
When Winneconne was left off the state highway map, the village seceded from Wisconsin. The stunt made national news and is still celebrated at the annual Sovereign State Days.
The post How a tiny Wisconsin village went viral nearly 60 years ago appeared first on WPR.
The National Museum of American History sits on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. (Photo courtesy National Museum of American History)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s latest attack on the Smithsonian Institution represents an attempt to replace a shared American history with his own ideology, academics said as the Smithsonian defended its longstanding position as a nonpartisan actor.
A July 4 White House report accused the Smithsonian Institution and its National Museum of American History of promoting what it called a “radical, activist ideology” that downplayed U.S. achievements and promoted injustices related to race, gender and sexual identity.
But the report does not advocate for a neutral presentation of history, said Asim Ali, an American studies professor at the University of Maryland. Instead, the report’s authors are promoting their own vision of American history that downplays the country’s shortcomings to promote national pride, Ali said.
“The report frames what the National Museum of American History is doing as being ideologically and politically motivated,” Ali said. “But what it is actually saying in the first several pages is that it should be following a different ideology — one that is focused on what the authors of the report want to see.”
A spokesperson for the Smithsonian, a constellation of museums largely funded by the federal government, said the museum had a nearly two-century track record of nonpartisan service.
“For more than 180 years, the Smithsonian has served the American public with nonpartisan and independent scholarship, and we remain committed to doing so,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement to States Newsroom.
Lonnie G. Bunch III, the secretary of the Smithsonian, was more forceful in an internal email, according to a July 8 Washington Post article.
His email to employees said the White House report was “not a fair characterization of the work and totality of the National Museum of American History,” according to the Post.
The scathing 162-page report published by the White House Domestic Policy Council represents the latest push in a broader Trump effort to restructure some of the nation’s hallmark cultural and artistic institutions to hew more closely to the nationalistic vision that animates his MAGA movement, American University history professor Pamela Nadell said.
It alleges the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History has “explicitly adopted an ideological framework that no longer treats the American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated,” instead painting the country in a “problematic” light with “thinly veiled anti-Americanism.”
“This ideological capture has moved the Museum’s mission away from straightforward historical education and scholarship toward an extreme political activism that seeks to transform our country,” the report said.
Ali said he thinks the report’s introduction reads like “propaganda” due to its focus on ideology and disregard of the contributions of academics and researchers.
Nadell also said the Trump administration is trying to get the Smithsonian — along with other cultural and educational institutions across the country — to conform to a certain “patriotic, heroic narrative.”
She said she disagreed with the report’s attempts to deemphasize flawed parts of America’s story that are “essential to tell the complete history of the nation.”
The White House report also has its defenders, who agree with Trump that U.S. educational and cultural institutions ought to show the country’s history in a more positive light.
U.S. Sen. Jim Banks, an Indiana Republican who introduced a bill to codify a 2025 Trump executive order on the presentation of U.S. history, said in a social media post Tuesday that the White House was right to criticize the National Museum of American History.
“The Museum of *American* History has no major exhibits dedicated to *America’s* founding,” the senator wrote. “Instead, it focuses on ‘social justice’ and ‘decolonization.’ This is wrong.”
The Domestic Policy Council, which is led by former Trump campaign speechwriter Vince Haley, accused museum leadership of advancing personal ideological agendas that contradict the institution’s founding patriotic principles.
The language used in the White House report echoes arguments the second Trump administration has made against academic and cultural institutions the president has deemed too culturally liberal or “woke.”
Last year, less than one month after he assumed office, Trump named himself chairman of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and took control of much of the center’s programming.
He has also ordered colleges and universities to make changes to their diversity, equity and inclusion-related programs and threatened to withhold federal funding if they did not comply.
And the July 4 report is not the first move the Trump administration has made against the Smithsonian Institution. The president issued a March 2025 executive order to “restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness” and get rid of any “improper ideology.”
Then, beginning in August of last year, he launched an investigation into exhibitions and materials from eight of the Smithsonian’s 21 museums.
Andrew Taylor, an associate professor of arts management at American University, said the Smithsonian should not be immune from criticism.
“I think anybody and everybody in the country has the right to hold the Smithsonian accountable and to make their best case for the things they’re concerned about,” he said. “That’s fine, that’s harmless and it’s useful.”
But, he added, the White House’s critique seemed more designed to disrupt an honest public accounting of the nation’s story.
“It feels like the report is intended to change what we consider to be our shared history, without actually going through the process of knowing what that should be,” he said.
As people across the state mark the 250th anniversary of the country’s independence with parades and fireworks, one Wisconsin community is celebrating a key figure in early American history with a new work of theater.
Adams, Wisconsin, a small city north of Wisconsin Dells, celebrated America’s 250th birthday with an original play about the city and county namesake — founding father John Adams.
“In many ways, he’s kind of the forgotten founder,” said Adams County Historical Society President Michael Goc, who wrote the play. “We think of Washington and Franklin and Jefferson, but Adams was there all the time.”
“Abigail and John: The First Couple of the United States” made its debut at the refurbished movie theater along the town’s main drag in late June, produced by the historical society and Adams Community Theatre.
John Adams was the driving force behind the Declaration of Independence. According to Goc, his influence went far beyond 1776.
“John was everywhere,” Goc said. “He was involved in every important political event in the revolutionary era from before 1776 and all the way up until he left the presidency in 1801.”
So, Goc said, it “just made sense” to mount a play about Adams this year as America celebrates its 250th birthday. He started research and writing over the winter.
As Goc researched Adams, he also learned more about first lady Abigail Adams. In the play, John and Abigail sit at a table, reading letters they wrote to each other over the years. Most of the dialogue was pulled directly from real historical letters from the many years the two spent apart while John worked to establish a new country.
For Goc, the couple personifies the best parts of American history.
“They cared about the country, they worked hard, they worked with each other,” he said.
It’s also a love story, Goc said.
“They stayed together for 54 years, and as John said, they were ‘like steel to magnet.’”
As the lights came on, actor Aaron Bonnett took the stage in a tricorn hat, greeting the audience.
“Good day, my fellow patriots, I am John Adams,” he proclaimed. “You know me as the second president of the United States. I am also the namesake of your county, this city, and this theater.”
Sitting at a table downstage, he began to read. The play includes the story of Adams’ role in the Continental Congress, his time as a diplomat in Europe and his term as president — and how Abigail was there through it all.
Bonnett said that, along with worrying about founding a new country, John and Abigail’s letters show they dealt with the same problems many married couples face today.
“250 years later, couples are still dealing with the same thing with family,” Bonnett said. “How much time do you dedicate to your profession, how much time do you dedicate to your family?”
The comparison is made all the more real for Bonnett by the fact that his real-life wife Tania Bonnett played first lady Abigail Adams. Coincidentally, Aaron, a sixth-generation farmer, played John, a lawyer. Meanwhile Tania, a lawyer and circuit court judge, played Abigail, who ran the family farm for the many years John was away.
She said learning more about the former first lady has been a rewarding experience that she’s been grateful to share with her family.
“Everyone’s heard of John Adams, and everybody knows what he did for our country, but here there was this really strong woman next to his side advising him, and he really had a high amount of respect for her and turned to her a lot, and I think that’s something that history just hasn’t told us about,” Tania Bonnett said.
The play’s dialogue took place over four short acts, with songs from a local choir in between. It’s a setlist music director Sandra Swisher-Pheiffer called the “the hot hits of the 1770s.”
Accompanied by a banjo, the choir sang several verses of “Yankee Doodle.” But the words are slightly different than the audience may know, Swisher-Pheiffer said, because they chose the American version of the song over the British version “that was intended to make fun of the colonials.”
The choir also performed a period hymn that may have been sung at John and Abigail’s wedding and a campaign song called “Adams and Liberty.”
For Swisher-Pheiffer, the play was a profound experience, especially during tumultuous political times.
“It can be easy for me to feel a little bit discouraged now, but this gets back to the the importance of honor and of liberty and freedom, and how no one individual should have total power in any sense within the government, and it’s reminded me of where we started, and that’s made me feel good,” she said.
She hopes audience members felt the same.
This story was originally published by WPR.
‘Abigail and John: the First Couple of the United States’ puts the second president in the spotlight is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
Historian and UW-Madison professor John Hall discusses native history and life in Wisconsin 250 years ago.
The post Wisconsin wasn’t a state in 1776. What did life look like here 250 years ago? appeared first on WPR.
The 15-foot long white pine canoe likely dates back to the late 1700s.
The post Menominee canoe from Wisconsin on display at Smithsonian to mark America’s 250th birthday appeared first on WPR.
The Society of American Magicians is holding its annual convention, “Houdini: 100 Years Later,” in celebration, which continues through July 4 in Appleton.
The post Appleton celebrates the enduring magic of Houdini 100 years after his death appeared first on WPR.
How does Wisconsin fit 178 years of state history into a box — the size of a Rubik's Cube — that won’t decay?
The post Old Abe feather among Wisconsin history to be interred in America’s Time Capsule appeared first on WPR.
The U.S. Supreme Court on April 9, 2026. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that law enforcement searches for the location history of cellphones near crime scenes are covered by the Fourth Amendment, requiring warrants to obtain the data.
But the high court left unsettled when searches for the information are reasonable — likely meaning the justices will eventually weigh in again on the privacy rights of Americans in the electronic era.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers conducted a search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment when they obtained cellphone location history data during an investigation into a bank robbery in Virginia. The amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
“An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information — even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion.
Kagan was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Kentanji Brown Jackson. Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred in the judgment but did not join the majority opinion.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett.
Over the past two decades, geofence warrants have become a major tool of law enforcement. At a basic level, they allow police to identify phones within a geographic area for a certain period of time. The data can be tremendously valuable to investigators, offering a way to develop suspects in crimes where their identities aren’t otherwise known.
Civil liberties advocates warned that geofence warrants ensnare people in digital dragnets, handing the government data on anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They argued that accessing data on anyone within a certain area — the geofence — amounts to a general warrant prohibited by the Constitution.
A broad bipartisan coalition of states urged the justices to uphold the warrants. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia filed a brief with the court arguing that geofence warrants can be more precise than many traditional investigative methods when supported by probable cause and appropriately tailored. In the brief, they urged the justices not to prohibit geofence warrants altogether.
Geofence warrants can generate critical leads when the perpetrators of crimes are otherwise unknown, they wrote. When suspects are unknown but the suspected wrongdoing is linked to a specific place and time, location data provides one of the narrowest available tools for finding leads, the brief argues.
The case centered on a 2019 robbery of a federal credit union in Midlothian, Virginia. Okello Chatrie was convicted of armed robbery after surveillance footage showed the robber using a cellphone. A detective then obtained a geofence warrant directed at Google for devices within 150 meters of the credit union within an hour of the robbery.
Google initially provided anonymized data in response to the warrant. The detective then requested and received additional location data on nine users. Finally, the detective received de-anonymized information on three users, without obtaining an additional warrant.
While Google has since changed the way it stores location history data to limit geofence warrants, other apps and tech firms collect the data. Lawyers for Chatrie argued that geofence warrants open the door to the authorities requesting information on everyone at a sensitive location — perhaps an abortion clinic or a political convention — at a particular time.
The records serve as a “personal journal of a user’s movements,” Kagan wrote. Location history resembles other private materials like emails, documents, photos and calendars that, even if stored on Google’s servers, users reasonably view as their own, she wrote. Users, in turn, expect the data to be shielded from the “inquisitive eyes” of the government, Kagan wrote.
But Kagan and the court’s majority didn’t wade into whether the search of Chatrie was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. While the warrant in the case was an uncommon, multi-step warrant, Kagan wrote, the lower appeals court found that a search did not occur, so it did not decide whether the warrant was reasonable.
“We are, as we have said many times before, ‘a court of review, not of first view,’” Kagan wrote. “It is therefore now up to the Court of Appeals to decide whether, at each step of the search process, the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of particularity and probable cause.”
In his dissent, Alito wrote that the Supreme Court’s decision “further destabilizes” longstanding jurisprudence on the Fourth Amendment. He accused the majority of issuing an advisory opinion by not addressing whether the search of Chatrie’s data was reasonable.
“Indeed, by refusing to review the one question that could have at least theoretically given Chatrie some hope of relief, the Court carefully set the stage for its planned performance: striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age. I cannot support this irresponsible escapade,” Alito wrote.
Login