I’ve been asked as a historian what I think of historian Heather Cox Richardson. In particular, since I am a historian who has posted nearly every day to a blog for about 20 years, I was asked about her blog popularity. I was asked what do I think of her posting every day to her blog for seven years, rising to millions of followers.

Well, not much, honestly. I had never heard of her before I was asked. And when I was asked, I looked and found that she was publishing things that seemed factually wrong. I also don’t honestly know how many followers I have. I don’t track and advertise, or take paid subscriptions, so we’re fundamentally different on the platform as well as the points.

Take December 28, for example. Since 2019, she has republished her account of the night before the Wounded Knee Massacre. She revises it each year. It’s kind of like how I was doing the exact same thing for Thanksgiving Day starting back in 2005.

When I did a diff across her annual posts, I found the name “Big Foot” was dropped in 2023. And “a dozen years ago, I wrote a book” became “fifteen years ago” in 2024. I get that. But then I found ane sentence rising up again and again, through all seven editions without edit:

In came three mountain guns.

Huh? Why does she say three? I’m not saying this to be pedantic. It’s rather important in the detail of military strategy from that time to know the exact type, number and position of guns. Such details are literally how people learn to win the next battle, or even a war.

The Army counted four. So why three?

Major Samuel Whitside testified to the court of inquiry in January 1891 that his column reached Wounded Knee Creek with “two Hotchkiss guns, under Lieut. Hawthorne,” and that Colonel Forsyth arrived at about 8:45 that night with “one section of Hotchkiss guns, under Captain Capron.”

Two guns were on the hill at dusk and two more came in after dark.

With all due respect, Richardson works full-time on history and she wrote the book on Wounded Knee. A specialist in the Army’s files calls her book “phenomenally researched.” And yet her newsletter, Letters from an American, which reports more than three million subscribers, doesn’t seem to hold the line.

I suppose we could call this one mistake a small thing. I suppose we could even say repeating it annually, increasing the chances of it becoming repeated by others, is a small thing. But my own training begs me to ask how big of a pattern can I find from the small thing. I think the gun is a bigger symptom than most people would notice, and it’s certainly something that LLM vendors get raked over the coals about.

So, being an old disinformation analyst by formal training, what could I do but pull all of her 2,300 letters, from September 2019 through November 14, 2026? I’m not interested in her current politics or even her arguments. Although, let me also point out that facts affect the arguments, as I explained already in another post about her. This time I had AI models read every passage about events before 2000 and flag the dates, counts, names and offices that disagree with a primary source. Then I checked the machine. Every example in this post I verified myself against the source I link. Primary sources have the correct answer, so it’s really just a test about the drift in her texts, a simple plus or minus.

Interestingly, there are 524 letters about an event in history with a date. Of those, 96 have at least one factual error. Of those, there are 68 distinct errors that I found 109 times. She tends to repeat her errors when she posts re-runs. That’s just a start, because quantitative analysis seemed to be the right path into qualitative.

Slop is a word we use for automation machines. It’s a derogatory term about the high cost, high output and low integrity. Each of her letters isn’t brief, usually over a thousand words and a page of source notes. It seems to be on the end of high cost and high output, so I’m asking here if there is there evidence of integrity issues? Or perhaps more to the point, is there a lack of an editor doing the pre-publication pass that a book deal would impose upon her?

Richardson Claim	History
“In came three mountain guns” (every December 28, 2019 to 2025)	Four Hotchkiss guns: two with Whitside, two with Forsyth (Whitside testimony, 1891)
“That night, America declared war on Japan” (2019, 2021, 2023, 2024)	Roosevelt addressed Congress at 12:30 p.m. on December 8 and signed the declaration at 4 p.m. (National Archives)
Tennessee ratified the Nineteenth Amendment “by a vote of 50 to 49” (2022, 2024, 2026)	The House voted 49 to 47 after a 48 to 48 tie; the Senate voted 25 to 4 (National Park Service)
“Parliament in 1772 removed all but one of the new taxes” (2023, 2024, 2026)	Parliament rescinded four of the five Townshend duties in April 1770 (Massachusetts Historical Society)
John Lewis “in 1960 was one of the thirteen original Freedom Riders” (2019, 2020, 2021, 2025)	Lewis became a Freedom Rider in 1961 (National Park Service)
“former U.S. senator Alexander Stephens of Georgia” (2026); “Georgia Senator Alexander Stephens” (2022 twice)	Stephens sat in the U.S. House from 1843 to 1859 and never in the U.S. Senate (House Historian)

The Wounded Knee letter gives a clue how the mistakes might happen. Each December someone edits the tribal names and the author’s note, and then publishes the same text again. That is a pass for readability, making the text enjoyable. Quality isn’t being defined in terms of the accuracy, which is how the number of guns continues to be wrong.

When I looked at the Pearl Harbor letter, it said “That night” four times between 2019 and 2024. It wasn’t that night. In 2025 it corrected to “The next day, the United States declared war on Japan.” That’s great. Except for two things. The page carries no correction note and the four earlier editions are wrong. My thing about Pearl Harbor has always been the listening station being ignored. It’s a bit messy to understand and explain. But this night/day thing is a simple one.

The 2025 edit fixed the date and kept the order of events. The sentence now reads: “The next day, the United States declared war on Japan. Japan declared war on America, and on December 11, 1941, both Italy and Germany declared war on America.” Every edition has the United States declare war first and Japan second.

Japan declared first. Japan’s cabinet released the imperial rescript declaring war at 1100 hours on December 8, Tokyo time. Tokyo was fourteen hours ahead of Washington, so the rescript came out at 9 p.m. on December 7 in Washington, about seven hours after the attack began. Roosevelt signed the American declaration at 4 p.m. on December 8, nineteen hours after Japan’s.

Again, without context it seems like a small error, but in terms of war, that’s one of the worst mistakes possible. Who declared war first matters A LOT for basically every reason we study war at all.

Richardson does mark corrections. Her letter of May 21, 2024 concludes on this line: “Edited on the morning of May 22 to correct the date to May 21. Sorry about that.” The headline date was fixed and flagged within hours. The same letter says Joseph McCarthy spoke in Wheeling “On February 12, 1950.” The Wheeling Intelligencer of February 10 reported that he spoke “last night.” Her own letter eleven days later gives February 9. Talk about a merry-go-round. At the end of it all, the incorrect February 12 date is still on the page.

One edit in fact made a true sentence false. In 2022 she wrote of the Little Bighorn: “The only army survivor of the battle from Custer’s immediate command was a horse, Comanche.” For the 150th anniversary in 2026 the sentence reads: “The only army survivor of the battle was a horse, Comanche.” Whoops. She deleted four words that erased the fact that hundreds of men under Reno and Benteen survived the battle. Again, a small detail, but it kind of is the entire point of studying Custer that he was such an incompetent bombastic disaster (foreshadowing politics today), different from others like Reno and Benteen.

Richardson Claim	History
Republicans “added five new states” by July 1890 (September 2025); “six new states,” with Wyoming and Idaho both admitted “On July 3, 1890” (February 2026)	Six states. Idaho was admitted July 3, 1890 and Wyoming July 10, 1890 (Statutes at Large)
A Joint Committee on Reconstruction “of thirteen lawmakers” (November 2025); “of fifteen members” (October 2026)	Nine House members and six senators (House Historian)
Roosevelt’s Osawatomie speech “later that year” in 1910 (November 2023); “in 1912” (March 2024)	August 31, 1910 (Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library)

The October 2026 letter that corrected the committee to fifteen also says both chambers agreed to the Fourteenth Amendment “on June 18, 1866.” Congress passed it on June 13. I guess an 8 can look like 3 sometimes. My eyes aren’t great anymore. But a system with integrity controls is meant to compensate for exactly that kind of error. These letters float conflicting dates, where each is published with the same confidence, internally contradictory.

The November 2023 letter gives the 1912 result as “409 electoral votes to Roosvelt’s 107 and Taft’s 15.” When I checked the National Archives I found 435, 88 and 8. Very strange.

The February 2024 letter gives Lincoln “212 electoral votes to McClellan’s 12.” When I checked, McClellan won 21.

Can you see why I ran a mathematical analysis? It’s fast, it’s easy, and it’s the kind of thing my history professors hammered into me. Davi, at least get the dates right if you want to do analysis of events. It’s the kind of importance I carried straight into digital forensics investigations, where a timestamp error is death to any attempts at catching a perpetrator.

Secretariat’s “trainer” in her annual Kentucky Derby letter is Charlie Hatton, who wrote about racing for the Daily Racing Form. Nope. And the line she gives him, “The trees swayed,” is one the Racing Form says he wrote about a different horse, Raise a Native, in 1963. Her letter has the wrong job for Hatton, the wrong horse, and a conversation with Red Smith that the Racing Form’s account doesn’t have.

Jim Thorpe’s 1912 pentathlon is listed as “sprint hurdles, long jump, high jump, shot put, and middle distance run.” Yet the events were actually long jump, 200 metres, discus, 1,500 metres and javelin.

Her very moving tribute to Dolly Parton has the singer on radio and television “in Nashville by the time she was 10” and then, in the next sentence, moving to Nashville in 1964. That’s such a quick flip, did she read her own letter? I didn’t know this history, and when I checked, found that the childhood broadcasts were in Knoxville.

A horse, an Olympian and a country singer aren’t the class of error as three versus four guns. These errors maybe are a matter of fast writing that goes out unchecked, and her memory is subject to correction like any of us. But bear with me here, as a historian who has written daily on a blog for 20 years, not to mention that it has been online since 1995. If you ask me what I think about her letters, I think I’m finding a lot of errors. When I am asked to look at just one letter, I find an error. And then I look at a few more, and I start to think something is off.

The rate has held steady, by my quick calculations. Hey, maybe I’m wrong here! But between 10 and 18 letters a year have carried an error in every year since 2021. Across seven years I found only three corrections. Eleven errors were republished three or more times.

Perhaps she needs a quarterly rescan, a cleanup of the past daily posts?

Richardson is very, very popular as a writer. The Daily Show just did an “interview” that amounted to the host gushing about her love for the letters, and Richardson even fluffing the host. The only history in it at all was a single minute comparing today to the 1890s, which the host took without a single question. Shame on you Daily Show.

People are looking for the actual facts of what this country is.

You’re not going to call her out on that? Ok, then, I guess I have to be the one. This is what the host said.

I don’t think we have blue waves like this without scholars like you walking us through these moments.

Maybe the whole point is a feel-good narrative and regurgitation and re-runs of what works, to amplify and gain audience as Jon Stewart seemed to do with her. This is what she told him.

I help to show people where the ground is.

Any pilot relying on her would be shown the wrong number for where the ground is for at least 1 of every 5 flights. You want to fly on those numbers?

She is a clear and persuasive writer, and most of her history is on target. But it’s not all, and maybe reach is the reason her errors matter even more, beyond the question of whether she would accept a factual error in one of every five papers a history student turns in. If her low-quality facts get high reach, is it better than someone with high-quality facts getting low-reach? That’s a question for the ages. McDonalds or a local chef, you make the call. Three million people receive the letter as if it is the work of a historian. And the way I was trained, an historian’s authority comes from them doing the checking and re-checking, not you doing all the clicking.

The evidence of a honeypot begs who or what was it for.

The NVIDIA espionage case has produced at least two answers, which I see floating around already. The spy wanted the GPU engineering secrets, or the spy wanted to steer the CEO deeper into circular financing that inflates the AI bubble that pops and takes the American economy down with it. Both answers assume the CEO is a victim, someone who is influenced from an outside agent. A little Soviet history tells us why that assumption fails.

The KGB built an entire apparatus to move people in a predictable direction. Its internal dictionary, smuggled out by the archivist Vasili Mitrokhin and published as the KGB Lexicon, defines the agent of influence as a recruited asset who uses his official or public position, on instruction, to shift policy and opinion. The dictionary sets him apart from the confidential contact, who is cultivated without knowing it. Every term in the book assumes a target who isn’t moving on their own, and thus has to be nudged. Oleg Kalugin, who ran those operations in Washington, told CNN in a 1998 interview that subversion rather than collection was the heart and soul of Soviet intelligence.

The efforts focused on those in the West who pushed back, to breach integrity (shift their thoughts) more than confidentiality (leak secrets).

The honeypot doctrine historically points away from CEOs, instead of directly at them. Markus Wolf’s HVA ran the Romeo program against Bonn for three decades, and the CIA’s own account of it says the targets were lonely government secretaries, chosen because the method was cheap and the women held the files. The chancellor had opinions. The secretary had the documents. Sexpionage went where the paper was. A CEO who learns his own products from slide decks is the wrong end (pun not intended) of that building.

There also was a raw material rule. A 1983 State Department study of Soviet forgeries put it like this: the lever lies in the prejudices of the deceived. The handler gives precise direction and a tempo to a tendency that already was present. A confidence builder and an accelerant.

Huang supplies his own direction and his own tempo.

It’s all public, at max confidence and speed. Heck, I’ve even reported the NVIDIA pipeline into Russian drones bombing civilians during sanctions. This is not the kind of CEO who needs a spy in his bedroom to convince him of helping the bad guys.

He has argued for years that NVIDIA should sell China everything short of its newest line. In October 2025, three months after the administration granted export licenses on a revenue-sharing arrangement, NVIDIA committed $25 million to the White House ballroom and asked that the gift stay anonymous. In May 2026 Huang was left off the delegation to Beijing. Trump called him and picked him up in Alaska on the way to Xi, and Reuters reported that same week that Commerce had already cleared H200 sales to about ten Chinese firms.

That was the same spring Secretary of State Rubio oversaw a classified memo warning the White House that Huang was in a close relationship with Alice Huang, a Chinese citizen whom US officials had concluded was recruited by the Ministry of State Security. The warning was blaring like a bullhorn. Huang kept his seat, perhaps even because of it. A counterintelligence flag on the loudest opponent of export controls changed nothing, because his position was aligned with the administration’s position. An agent of influence recruited to produce that outcome would have been paid for nothing. And that’s not how agents roll.

The British learned all this back in 1963. John Profumo shared Christine Keeler with a Soviet naval attache, and Lord Denning’s inquiry found no breach of security from the connection. Profumo fell anyway, because he lied to the House of Commons about the affair. The spy story was the sideshow. The integrity failure ended the man without a single secret changing hands.

Washington already has a China story, too. Katrina Leung was one of the FBI’s highest paid assets and an 18-year intimate partner of her handler, Special Agent James J. Smith, while she passed material to Beijing. The Justice Department Inspector General found in 2006 that the FBI did little or nothing about the counterintelligence warnings that piled up during those years. The warnings were there. Leung was apparently more useful to the FBI as a source than as a suspect. Smith hid the affair, and the Bureau left him in charge of the one asset who could expose it. The memo circulating in spring 2026 about Huang and Megaspeed is a two-decade old rehash more than a novelty.

NVIDIA’s own words on Sunday kill some of the speculation. Huang’s message to employees admits the affair, apologizes to his wife and children, and says he will cooperate with the board. It names no woman, no company and no chip. The national security concerns get one sentence about loving his country. The board’s statement, as reported by the Times, said the company had no reason to believe that either national security or NVIDIA secrets were compromised. A collection operation looks exactly like that from the inside. Nothing is missing from a box that was never targeted for opening, and the man who owns the box has confessed to everything except what was in it.

The target was the supply chain.

Alice Huang was a senior executive at Megaspeed, a Singapore company that became NVIDIA’s largest buyer in Southeast Asia and that the Commerce Department and Singapore police were investigating in October 2025 over whether its chips moved on into China. NVIDIA says it checked and found the chips where they belonged. Either way, a CEO close to a procurement channel is worth having for allocation, for customer intelligence, and for early warning on enforcement. That is the commercial side of collection, which needs no influence at all. It’s like saying a woman working for candy stores is having an affair with the candy maker. The secrets are the delivery schedules.

The precedent is well-worn in history. Between 1982 and 1984 Toshiba Machine and Norway’s Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk sold nine-axis propeller milling machines and their controllers to the Soviet Union on false export papers naming a civilian end user. Because what Russian civilian doesn’t need ultra-quiet submarine propellers? Reagan called it in 1987 a serious diversion that served the Soviet program of underwater warfare. The buyers worked through a KGB-linked trading organisation. The sellers worked for the contract. The same year the Toshiba deal was signed, a KGB colonel named Vetrov handed the French thousands of documents from Directorate T, the service built to acquire Western technology, exposing more than 200 Line X officers in Western capitals. Line X ran on willing sellers and front companies. Greed did the recruiting. A honeypot would have been an unnecessary expense, and the Soviets weren’t going to waste money on that.

The exhaustion lesson is the icing on this anti-American cake. Reagan’s NSDD-75 of January 1983 made sustained pressure on the Soviet economy explicit US policy, with the stated expectation of no near-term improvement in relations. The Soviet Union was running out of runway fast because of corrupted overspend. The Chinese Communist Party spent the following decades studying how that happened, and the lesson it drew is to let the other side spend itself out against a shadow. The history-savvy Chinese have no reason to push Huang into circular financing that he already loves. He couldn’t be pressed more there. China watches, it buys what it knows will be released to it, and it stays out of the way.

The circulating answers I’ve seen for the honeypot story share an important assumption, that a CEO is a victim being externally influenced. But we all see very openly how Huang already was moving on its own, and the administration was moving with him, and the only place a Chinese service had any job to do at all was minding their supply chain that his company kept insisting was clean.

One figure on the poster held gold coins in one hand and a whip in the other, with a map of the Soviet Union under his arm. The Deutsches Historisches Museum catalogues him as a Jew who embodies Western capitalism and Soviet Bolshevism at the same time. That one figure is the story from 8 November 1937. Twenty rooms beyond the poster were setup by Nazis to sell a lie.

“Der ewige Jude” opened in the library building of the Deutsches Museum in Munich as a “Große politische Schau”, with speeches by Goebbels and Streicher. It ran to 31 January 1938 and counted 412,000 visitors. The touring version reached Vienna, Berlin, Bremen, Dresden and Magdeburg before closing in June 1939. The Reichspropaganda-Amt and the Gauleitung München-Oberbayern built it with the Anti-Komintern and the party’s research institutes on the “Judenfrage”, a list recorded in Rosemarie Burgstaller’s entry in the Historisches Lexikon Bayerns. The Stadtarchiv München holds the press photographs of the rooms.

The sequence of rooms

Room one showed photographs of Rudolf Hilferding, Karl Radek and the actress Elisabeth Bergner, enlarged facial features and three wax heads. The wall text asserted typical Jewish features and explained their absence as camouflage. A Jew who looked German was a Jew in disguise.

Room two presented the Talmud and the Schulchan Aruch. The party journal “Mitteilungen über die Judenfrage” summarised the room: these law books with their thousands of paragraphs of hatred for non-Jews are for Jews what religion is for other peoples. Judaism was a hostile code wearing the costume of a faith.

A forty-metre hall followed, with a film of ritual slaughter running on a loop at the entrance and guided tours drawing the line to ritual murder.

Then the exhibition changed century. A Weimar film section with its own cinema. A mock shopping street with windows for fashion, music, literature and art, labelled as Jewish decay. A culture room under the title “Sodom und Gomorra” with Arthur Schnitzler, Franz Werfel, Max Reinhardt, Josephine Baker and Yehudi Menuhin. Seven or eight rooms of photomontage on Walther Rathenau, Georg Bernhard, Magnus Hirschfeld and Sigmund Freud, with walls built to lean inward over the visitor. A Bolshevism section of ruined cities and corpses copied from the Anti-Komintern shows. Two rooms of Freemasonry with coffins and skulls. An “Ehrenhalle” with the Nuremberg Laws in marble, and a last room presenting camps and expulsion as the solution.

The first rooms indicted the Jew as an archaic tribe with a bloody cult and a book of hatred in place of religion. The later rooms indicted the Jew as the author of modern sexuality, psychoanalysis, the theatre, the press, the department store and the Soviet state. Nazi usage called that second charge Kulturbolschewismus. The exhibition charged Jews with being too religious and with dissolving everyone else’s religion, and it placed the two charges in consecutive rooms. Room one had already supplied the rule that made both charges hold: the visible Jew was the enemy, and the invisible Jew was the enemy hiding. The same preference for the legible Jew survived the regime, which is why postwar Germany honours Chug Chaluzi for religious motives that German-Jewish society of the 1920s had treated as a mark against them.

From rooms to Xcrements

The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism has compiled the timestamped reactions of Christian nationalist figures and Project 2025 coalition partners to the midterm results, from the evening of 3 November to the morning of 5 November 2026. Read against the Munich floor plan, the compilation sorts itself by room.

Munich, 1937	X, 3 to 5 November 2026
Room 2: Talmud in place of religion. Long hall: ritual slaughter on a loop	Partridge: divine judgment for “Pandering to Anti-Christ Israel”
Culture room “Sodom und Gomorra”: Schnitzler, Reinhardt, Baker. Photomontage rooms: Hirschfeld, Freud	Webbon: Jews vote for “sexual perversion, and abortion”
Bolshevism section: ruined cities	Metaxas: “Islam and Marxism”. Driscoll: a “counterfeit trinity”
Poster: coins in one hand, whip in the other, Soviet map under the arm	Torba: the “Hinjew alliance”. Webbon: Jews caused the Iran war, Jews voted Democrat
Room 1: absence of Jewish features explained as camouflage	Webbon: Jews appointed as “captains of the team”; “They hate you”
Last room: camps and expulsion as the solution	Torba: “The time for voting is over.” Webbon: “I have a list.”

Joel Webbon, a Texas pastor, wrote at 12:41 a.m. on 4 November that Jews in the White House had talked Trump into the Iran war and that Zionists were the biggest threat to his side’s future. At 8:15 a.m. he wrote, “An entire war for Israel. Jews still voted Democrat.” Eleven minutes later he answered an exit poll showing Jewish voters at 67 percent for Democrats with “They hate you, your children, and your country.” At 11:18 p.m. he wrote that Jews vote for open borders, “demographic erasure, sexual perversion, and abortion.” One author, one day, with Jews as the war party of a foreign state and as the solvent of Christian order. Protection had been extended and loyalty assumed. A vote cast as citizens was received as treason.

Dale Partridge listed “Pandering to Anti-Christ Israel” first among the reasons for divine judgment. Andrew Torba of Gab wrote that those who bless Israel had been blessed with a landslide defeat and called the night a rejection of the “Hinjew alliance.” Eric Metaxas named Islam and Marxism as an existential enemy on the scale of the Revolution and the Civil War. Mark Driscoll named abortion, Marxism and Islam as a counterfeit trinity. The Bolshevism section in Munich showed ruined cities. The 2026 version adds a mosque.

Torba posted “The time for voting is over” at 10:32 p.m. on election night. Webbon promised the following evening that his side would win “with or without a majority vote,” and that morning had posted “I have a list. I will not forget.”

Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation alumnus who chairs a Project 2025 coalition member, wrote the morning after the election that the closest historical analogy was the 1932 German vote that made the Nazi party the largest in the Reichstag, and he meant the Democrats.

The Munich exhibition had a fixed grammar of Nazism. The Jew is their enemy as both the visible stranger and as the invisible insider, as the keeper of an archaic law and as the destroyer of other peoples’ faith.

The grammar acquires new names but nothing else. The timestamps in the GPAHE compilation show a 2026 regurgitation of 1937 Nazism was complete within forty hours of the polls closing.