U.S. Park Police, despite a permit allowing it to remain until Sept. 28.

Through executive action.

As well as the Park Service not providing an explanation why the permit was violated. (Yeah; we know why...)

Permits be damned! It's only on the PEOPLE'S Parkland!

At swamp a lago

odd statue. Who commissioned that I wonder, and why in the world would they be skipping. Very odd in my opinion.

I'd buy one for my lawn.

This is definitely a free speech violation. I was once involved in some "protest art." When the powers we protested against decided they didn't like our messages, they painted over them. The ACLU helped us out and we got permission to repaint the protest art. All of which to say, if you have a permit, the permit must be viewpoint neutral. These people have no sense whatsoever that government is supposed to work for all of us--the rules have to apply the same way to everyone. Government is not a tool for revenge and must not be a tool for one person with extremely thin skin.

The permit does include a clause that it can be revoked at any time as long as the permittee was notified of the reason at least 24 hours in advance.

It will probably get more attention by being removed than it did just for being there.

It’s not clear the story whether they did the notice. And the notice has to be accompanied by a reason, and therefore the reason has to be legal. The park service would not be allowed to say “we’re removing it because the president is insulted,” because that would be a free speech violation. So it’s still a problem.

Now you say it's not clear whether they did the notice, and the notice has to be accompanied by a reason, and therefore the reason has to be legal. In other words, you're admitting they could have given the notice and it could have been legal. That means it wasn't definitely a free speech violation.

That was my point. No problem if you strongly suspect they removed it without cause (which would be a free speech violation), but since it could have been legally removed, we can't know that for sure.

If they sent the notice, it would have been reported.
If the notice gave a real reason, it would have been reported.
So, because they didn't, it is definitely a free speech violation.
When you see reporting that proper notice was given and that said notice was not pre-textual, I will take it back. Until then, have a nice day.

The bodies themselves were stiff and not in the right position for skipping. It had no movement in the clothes and Trumps face was terrible. But give them an A for tenacity.

“Police told WUSA9 that it was removed for not being in compliance with the permit, but they did not explain how it violated the permit”

Negative connotations are entirely in the minds of those who object.