Since the twenty-first century, a lot of historical research is based on archeological data, a process vastly improved by the internet speeding up correspondence between experts. Now primary sources can ce accessed within hours instead of weeks.

And we're now in an era in which events are recorded with audio and video, and if they're particularly scandalous or violent, are posted to where the public can access it.

The Trump regime is trying hard to whitewash popular US history, but we have too many experts and they have the receipts.

ICEis now so renowned for lying and trying to cover up their brutality that Americans are conditioned to pull out their phones on the assumption there's going to be drama. Before ICE we has a similar phenomenon rising with law enforcement in general, since police would escalate and then lie in court while they were given the presumption of regularity.

The future historians writing the history of the United States may be foreign, but the US has figured largely in the 19th and 20th centuries, so academics are likely to be determined to follow the data and get it right.

This isn't to say there won't be alleged experts looking to shape the facts to fit an agenda or an ideology. We've seen plenty of that regarding the histories of Greece and Rome, for instance, but I anticipate those will conflict with the data and each other, while good faith historians will (more or less) concurr with the consensus.

We're seeing a similar phenomenon with biblical scholarship, even when there are efforts by ministries to capture and control biblical academics, to the point of organizing large orders of ideology-compliant academics, the fact-based consensus still prevails. (And still sees the bible as a historical text, neither inerrant, nor univocal, nor divinely inspired.)