White House Press Secretary sparked an international backlash after dismissing French MEP Raphaël Glucksmann’s call to return the Statue of Liberty.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt recently ignited a storm of international controversy after dismissing a call from French MEP (Member of the European Parliament) Raphaël Glucksmann to return the Statue of Liberty to France.

Leavitt’s remarks not only provoked outrage in France but also triggered a wave of backlash from history enthusiasts and critics across the globe, leading to a brutal fact-check from both public commentators and even X/Twitter’s “Community Notes.”

The controversy began when Raphaël Glucksmann, a French politician and advocate for Franco-American relations, made an impassioned plea for the United States to return the Statue of Liberty to France.

The statue, a gift from France to the U.S.in 1886, has long been a symbol of freedom and the enduring friendship between the two nations.

Glucksmann’s call seemed to touch on the enduring legacy of this historic exchange, particularly in light of evolving discussions about cultural restitution and the ownership of significant national monuments.

In response, Leavitt dismissed Glucksmann’s plea with derision, referring to him as a “low-level” politician.

She further mocked Glucksmann’s request by asserting that France should instead express gratitude to the United States for its role in liberating the country during World War II.

According to Leavitt, the U.S.intervention in the war was an act that should overshadow any claims regarding the statue’s return.

Leavitt’s comments were met with swift and fierce backlash, particularly in France, where many viewed her remarks as dismissive and historically ignorant.

Critics were quick to point out that France’s contribution to U.S.independence and the overall relationship between the two countries had not only been beneficial but essential.

One of the most notable critiques came from history-savvy commentators who pointed out that without France’s military support during the American Revolution, the United States might never have existed in the first place.

French forces, led by General Marquis de Lafayette, played a pivotal role in helping the American colonies secure victory against the British, culminating in the decisive Battle of Yorktown in 1781.

In the wake of Leavitt’s controversial comments, even X/Twitter’s “Community Notes” stepped in to provide a historical fact-check, reminding her that without France’s intervention, the U.S.might not have won its independence, let alone become the global power it is today.

The fact-check quickly gained traction and was widely shared, further undermining Leavitt’s remarks.

The Statue of Liberty itself holds profound significance in the relationship between the U.S.and France.

Commissioned by French sculptor Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi and dedicated on October 28, 1886, the statue was intended as both a gift and a symbol of friendship, peace, and liberty between the two nations.

The statue’s arrival in New York Harbor marked a defining moment in the Franco-American alliance, and it has remained a powerful symbol of freedom, welcoming immigrants to the U.S.for over a century.

Leavitt’s suggestion that France should instead be grateful for American intervention during World War II ignores the longstanding history of mutual support between the two nations.While the U.S.did play a critical role in the Allied victory during WWII, the debt of gratitude is not one-sided, and the historical ties between France and the U.S.go much deeper.

While Leavitt’s comments may have been intended as a lighthearted dismissal, they sparked a broader conversation about historical ignorance and the importance of understanding international relations in a nuanced context.

France’s role in American independence and the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty should not be underestimated, and Leavitt’s failure to acknowledge this contributed to the public outcry.

Moreover, the international backlash highlights the growing trend of accountability in the digital age, where statements made by public figures are subject to immediate scrutiny and correction.

Leavitt’s remarks served as a reminder that dismissing historical facts and international diplomacy can quickly lead to reputational damage, particularly when the online community is quick to provide accurate context.