Should the Federal Government Influence How Museums Present American History?
April 28, 2026 by
The administration of President Donald Trump has raised concerns that federally funded institutions, such as the National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC), wield the power to either heighten or ease racial tensions through what the administration calls “divisive” and “ideologically driven” narratives. The administration is scrutinizing the portrayal of the nation’s heritage at eight Smithsonian museums, arguing that the Smithsonian Institution “has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” that has “promoted narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.”1 The resulting debate has sparked fervent backlash from historians and museum leaders, who warn that such interventions risk sanitizing and undermining historical scholarship.
Historical Context
The Smithsonian was established in 1846 through a donation from James Smithson, a naturalized British citizen and scientist. Smithson asserted in his last will and testament that if his nephew passed away without an heir, his estate should be donated to the United States Congress to build a Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., for the “increase and diffusion of knowledge.” The Smithsonian has since grown into the largest museum complex in the world, receiving 62% of its funding from congressional appropriations and grants. The final 38% of funding is raised by private donations, endowments, institutional memberships, and other ventures.2
Since the Smithsonian is majorly funded by the federal government, there have been instances of presidents informing cultural narratives presented by the museums in the past. During the Cold War, for example, several administrations encouraged an emphasis on scientific achievement, space exploration, and national progress to honor American strength. Years later, the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama supported the construction of the NMAAHC.3
The NMAAHC is the newest Smithsonian and was established through an act of Congress in 2003 and officially opened in 2016. The congressional approval came after decades of endorsement from individuals including civil rights advocate and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who welcomed the creation of a national museum to represent the history and contributions of African Americans. The NMAAHC says its mission is to be a space to share “the unvarnished truth of African American history and culture” through connecting “stories, scholarship, art, and artifacts from the past and present to illuminate the contributions, struggles, and triumphs that have shaped our nation.”4 The museum consists of history, community, and cultural galleries that span 400 years of African American history, highlighting topics of slavery, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights Movement, as well as contributions from historic and contemporary African American politicians, artists, athletes, and more.
What Is Happening Now?
On March 27, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14253, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” The order calls on members of the U.S. government to initiate more scrutiny over the Smithsonian and “prohibit expenditure on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.” It charges that the Smithsonian has come “under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” and promotes narratives “that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.”5
On August 12, 2025, the White House sent a letter to Secretary of the Smithsonian Lonnie G. Bunch III, requesting materials from eight of the 21 museums for the administration to review. The letter directed that museums “should begin implementing content corrections where necessary, replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions across placards, wall didactics, digital displays, and other public-facing materials.”6
The following week, President Trump escalated his criticism on Truth Social, writing, “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future.”7
Bunch, the current secretary of the Smithsonian, was the founding director of the NMAAHC. The success of the NMAAHC was instrumental in Bunch’s 2019 selection by the Board of Regents to head the Smithsonian. Bunch has defended the museum’s mission by affirming that the Smithsonian remains “committed to telling the multi-faceted stories of this country’s extraordinary heritage.”8
Arguments in Favor of the Review
Supporters of the executive order argue that federally funded museums have an obligation to present American history in a way that reflects shared national values, not a particular ideological viewpoint. Because the Smithsonian receives 62% of its funding from congressional appropriations, they contend that the government has a legitimate interest in how that money is spent and what narratives it supports.
Over the past decade, President Trump and members of both of his administrations have been vocal regarding concerns about social cohesion, which he believes to be undermined by initiatives such as Black Lives Matter and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. The president has linked these movements to maintaining divisive narratives that, in his view, reject American ideals.
In his March 27 executive order, President Trump argued for restoring federal sites “to solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing.”9 Supporters of the order argue that the review is an opportunity to affirm those ideals when interpreting American history.
Jeffrey H. Anderson, president of the American Main Street Initiative and a former director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the Department of Justice, has argued that the Smithsonian’s exhibits have shifted over time. “It’s becoming increasingly easy to tell whether an exhibit at one of the Smithsonian museums in Washington, D.C. was designed decades ago or in recent years,” wrote Anderson, “simply by whether its depictions are traditional, universal, and appropriately celebratory, or radical, divisive, and reflexively condemning.”10 In this view, the administration’s review is a necessary corrective to an institution that has drifted from its founding mission.
Arguments Against the Review
Opponents of the executive order argue that it represents political interference in an institution whose mission depends on scholarly independence. They contend that presenting difficult history—including slavery, segregation, and systemic inequality—is not ideological bias but the basic work of honest historical scholarship.
The American Historical Association, joined by 36 professional organizations, released a statement saying the executive order “egregiously misrepresents the work of the Smithsonian Institution” and “completely misconstrues the nature of historical work.” The statement defined the historian’s purpose in terms that directly rebut the charge of bias: “Historians explore the past to understand how our nation has evolved. Our goal is neither criticism nor celebration; it is to understand—to increase our knowledge of—the past in ways that can help Americans to shape the future.”11
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), a member of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, joined three other Democratic senators in urging Bunch to resist attempts to “bully the institution.” In a statement, Padilla said, “The Smithsonian must remain free from political interference, no matter who lives in the White House.”12
Peniel Joseph, a professor at the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy at the University of Texas Austin, placed the controversy in broader historical context. “This is reminiscent of the age of McCarthyism, the age of the Cold War years, where speech was suppressed,” argued Joseph.13 Critics like Joseph argue that using federal funding as leverage to reshape museum content sets a precedent that could be applied by any future administration to promote its own preferred narrative.
Opponents say that having educational spaces focusing on slavery, racism, and injustice like those present in the NMAAHC plays a crucial role in documenting difficult history so it is not forgotten or repeated.
Discussion Questions
- What role should museums play in preserving or narrating public history?
- Is there a way to showcase the challenging parts of African American history and progress without being divisive? Why or why not?
- The Smithsonian receives 62% of its funding from the federal government. Does that give the executive branch a legitimate role in shaping how museums present history, or should publicly funded institutions be independent of such direction?
- The American Historical Association says the goal of historical work is “neither criticism nor celebration” but understanding. Do you think the NMAAHC’s exhibits, as described in this debate, align with that standard? Why or why not?
- President Trump argued that the Smithsonian focuses too much on “how bad Slavery was” and not enough on “Success” and “Brightness.” How should museums balance acknowledging painful history with celebrating national achievements?
- Professor Joseph compared the administration’s approach to McCarthyism. Do you find that comparison persuasive or unfair? Explain your reasoning.
- If you were a member of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, how would you respond to the executive order? What factors would guide your decision?
Related Posts
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.
Close Up is proud to be the nation’s leading nonprofit civic education organization, working with schools and districts across the country since 1971. If you would like to partner with us or learn more about our experiential learning programs, professional development, or curriculum design and consulting, contact us today!
Sources
Image Credit: bluestork / Shutterstock.com
[1] The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/
[2] Smithsonian Institution Archives: https://siarchives.si.edu/history/featured-topics/stories/james-smithson-founder-smithsonian-institution
[3] Smithsonian Archives of American Art: https://www.aaa.si.edu/collection-features/artful-presidency
[4] National Museum of African American History and Culture: https://nmaahc.si.edu/about/about-museum
[5] The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/
[6] The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/08/letter-to-the-smithsonian-internal-review-of-smithsonian-exhibitions-and-materials/
[7] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-smithsonian-how-bad-slavery-was-review-museums-rcna225964
[8] Museums Association: https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2025/04/smithsonian-will-continue-to-tell-multi-faceted-stories-of-us-history-says-lonnie-bunch/
[9] The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/
[10] City Journal: https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-executive-order-smithsonian-american-history
[11] American Historical Association: https://www.historians.org/news/historians-defend-the-smithsonian/
[12] National Public Radio: https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5529369/smithsonian-trump-senators
[13] PBS NewsHour: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/scholar-says-trumps-efforts-to-reframe-u-s-history-is-reminiscent-of-mccarthyism
