On December 17, 2025, controversy erupted at the White House as Fox News host Brian Kilmeade publicly questioned the appropriateness of plaques installed beneath the portraits of former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama. These plaques, part of what has been termed the “Walk of Fame,” feature critical commentary on both leaders, with Trump himself seemingly endorsing the divisive messages.
The plaques describe Biden as having taken office following “the most corrupt Election ever seen in the United States,” claiming his presidency has led to a series of “unprecedented disasters.” This statement echoes Trump’s longstanding false narrative concerning the legitimacy of the 2020 election. The plaque for Obama similarly reflects Trump’s perspective, labeling him “one of the most divisive political figures in American History” and criticizing major policies from his administration, such as the Affordable Care Act.
Kilmeade’s remarks stand in contrast to those of his Fox News colleague, Jesse Watters, who dismissed the plaques as Trump simply “having a little fun” with presidential history. Kilmeade expressed discomfort with the nature of the plaques, stating, “Just put the profiles up there. I am not for dispelling or saying anything bad.” He referenced the changing perceptions of historical figures, noting that some presidents initially viewed negatively, like Ulysses S. Grant, have since been reassessed more positively.
The installation of these plaques appears to have sparked a broader debate regarding the appropriateness of such partisan displays in a space traditionally reserved for honoring the presidency. The Colonnade of the White House, where the plaques were placed, has been an iconic site for presidential recognition, making the decision to include these politically charged messages particularly controversial.
As discussions around these plaques continue, they reflect a growing trend of political polarization in public spaces and the ways in which current leaders engage with the legacies of their predecessors. The implications of such actions extend beyond mere aesthetics, impacting public perception and the political landscape at large.
Kilmeade’s criticisms highlight a division within conservative media regarding the portrayal of past presidents and the impact of Trump’s ongoing rhetoric. While some may view these plaques as a form of political expression, others, like Kilmeade, call for a more respectful representation of presidential history. This incident raises significant questions about the role of the White House in shaping narratives around leadership and governance, making it a focal point for both political discourse and public sentiment.
