What Trump’s Possession Of The Declaration Reveals About His Vision Of America
Donald Trump has proudly shown off his new spoil of war—the Declaration of Independence. A document, which to me, has so much meaning and importance. Well, I’m quite upset about it.
Not because I believe such a document should never leave the National Archives. Historical artifacts can and sometimes should travel for legitimate purposes. But what unsettles me is the casual proprietorship implied by this transfer—the transformation of our collective heritage into one man’s trophy.
The Declaration of Independence isn’t just parchment and ink. It represents something far more profound: a moment when imperfect people reached for perfect ideals. When Jefferson, despite his own moral contradictions and hypocrisies, articulated principles that would ultimately challenge the very systems of privilege he benefited from.
What makes this document sacred isn’t its physical form but what it embodies: the audacious proposition that governance derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. That power flows upward from the people, not downward from a ruler.
When I think about the Continental Congress deliberating over each word, knowing the risk they were taking, I’m reminded that democracy has always been both fragile and resilient. Those men, flawed as they were, understood they were creating something that would outlive them—something that belonged not to them but to generations unborn.
That’s why seeing the Declaration displayed as a presidential prop feels so viscerally wrong. It’s not simply inappropriate; it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what the document means. It belongs to all of us—not as a relic to be possessed, but as a living covenant that continues to challenge and inspire us.
This is where I have a serious point of departure with some of my more left-leaning friends who have taken a disinterested and detached view of history. Jefferson owned slaves. A hypocrisy he acknowledged. And he laid the intellectual groundwork for its end. This is the problem of puritanism. It can’t see progress. It can’t see these mile-markers where real moral progress occurred. Where the human heart expanded.
To reduce the Declaration to the personal failings of its author is to miss its revolutionary significance. It’s not that Jefferson’s moral contradictions don’t matter—they absolutely do. But the document he crafted transcended him. It contained principles that would later be wielded against the very institutions of oppression he participated in. Frederick Douglass understood this when he asked, “What to the slave is the Fourth of July?” He wasn’t rejecting the Declaration—he was claiming it, insisting that its promises be fulfilled for all Americans.
The Declaration wasn’t the end of America’s moral journey but its beginning. It established a standard against which we could measure our failures and toward which we could direct our aspirations. It created a language of liberty that marginalized people would later use to demand their rightful place in the American project.
This document, this Declaration of Independence was the beginning of a radical idea that human civilization had never seen before: that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, not from divine right or brute force or inherited privilege. That all people are created equal—a claim that would repeatedly challenge America to expand its understanding of who counts as “all.”
That it now sits in the office of a man who has no appreciation for any of this is quite frankly hard to take. A man who has explicitly called for the “termination” of constitutional rules, who has claimed “absolute immunity” from prosecution, who has said “I am your retribution”—phrases that echo precisely the kind of monarchical authority the Declaration was written to reject.
I am quite romantic about that document and I do not apologize for it. This romanticism isn’t blind nostalgia or uncritical patriotism. It’s a clear-eyed recognition that in those words, something profound happened—a doorway opened to possibilities that hadn’t existed before. The beginning of a conversation about freedom and equality that continues to this day, sometimes halting, sometimes regressing, but ultimately advancing toward a more inclusive understanding of those self-evident truths.
This is an important part of my praxis. Understanding and embracing these historical contingencies, and recognizing them for the moral mile-markers that they are. We should be proud of this history. We should be proud of our progress. And I am proud. I will always hold the stars and stripes high. Because I know what the flag stands for.
This isn’t blind patriotism; it’s an informed commitment to what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.” It’s recognizing that America has always existed in the productive tension between what we are and what we aspire to be. The flag, like the Declaration, represents not just our history—with all its contradictions and failings—but the ongoing project of creating “a more perfect union.”
To truly honor these symbols requires neither uncritical reverence nor cynical dismissal, but a mature engagement with their complexity. It means acknowledging darker chapters while still affirming the underlying principles that have allowed for moral growth and self-correction. It means understanding that our national symbols derive their power not from mythological perfection but from their capacity to inspire continual improvement.
This approach stands in stark contrast to how these symbols are currently being weaponized. When national treasures like the Declaration become personal trophies, when the flag becomes a brand rather than a covenant, something essential is lost. These symbols are diminished when they’re reduced to instruments of division rather than recognized as repositories of shared aspirations.
The Declaration now sitting in Trump’s office represents a fundamental misunderstanding of its meaning. It’s not a decoration or status symbol; it’s a challenge to power itself. Its presence in the Oval Office should remind every president of the limits of their authority, not serve as a backdrop for authority’s expansion.
What makes America’s founding documents revolutionary isn’t that they established a perfect nation, but that they created a framework for ongoing moral progress—a way to acknowledge our shortcomings while working toward their remedy. They represent the radical idea that a nation can be founded not just on shared history or ethnicity, but on shared principles.
This is the patriotism worth defending—not one that demands blind loyalty, but one that invites perpetual renewal. Not one that glosses over failures, but one that confronts them in service of our highest ideals.
Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And the Declaration of Independence belongs not to any president or party, but to the American people—a document whose meaning transcends its authors’ limitations and continues to challenge us to live up to its promise.
Jefferson understood this when he wrote: “I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.” He knew that the document he crafted wasn’t merely a historical artifact but a living covenant between generations—between those who began this experiment in self-governance and those who would carry it forward.
The Declaration now sits in the Oval Office. But its spirit—the radical notion that power flows from the people, not to them—remains where it has always been: in the collective conscience of a nation still striving to make its founding promises real for all. That, more than any physical parchment, is Jefferson’s true legacy. And it’s one worth defending with all the moral clarity we can muster.
Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.