A Smithsonian Shake-Up: Politics and History Collide
An unusual storm is brewing in the nation’s most prestigious museums, raising questions about the integrity of America’s historical record. For decades, the Smithsonian Institution has stood as a neutral guardian of knowledge and culture,
a place where fact, scholarship, and public education intersect. Now, a directive from the Trump administration has prompted historians, curators, and visitors alike to wonder: is the story of America being quietly rewritten behind closed doors?
The Executive Push
In March, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order demanding a review of Smithsonian exhibits and programs to ensure they align with his interpretation of American history. As reported by the Wall Street Journal on August 12, the White House has since sent detailed instructions to Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch, following up on the March 27 order titled Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.
The administration’s order criticized the institution for allegedly promoting a “divisive, race-focused ideology” in its exhibitions, framing American history as inherently oppressive. The White House demanded that any material deemed “agenda-driven” be removed and replaced with content deemed “factually accurate and unifying,” requesting a preliminary report within 30 days. Senior associate Lindsay Halligan defended the initiative, saying:
“This ensures that one of our nation’s most treasured institutions inspires pride, education, and discovery for generations to come.”
Smithsonian’s Response
The Smithsonian has reaffirmed its commitment to “scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and factual accuracy.” A spokesperson emphasized that the institution would engage with the administration and Congress constructively, while maintaining its foundation in rigorous historical scholarship.
The tension between politics and curation has already produced tangible changes. CNN and The Washington Post reported that a label referencing Trump’s two impeachments in the American Presidency: A Glorious Burden exhibit was removed during a content review. The museum clarified that the label had always been intended as temporary, noting that sections covering presidential power were under regular revision.
Public and Political Debate
The controversy has sparked fierce debate. CNN commentator Jilian Michaels defended Trump’s order, asserting that history should not attribute imperialism, racism, and slavery to any one race exclusively. Congressman Ritchie Torres responded sharply, calling her comments “extraordinary historical revisionism” and warning of the dangers of sanitizing history.
The debate has polarized the nation: supporters of the administration praise the directive as an effort to foster unity and patriotic pride, while critics fear the rewriting of exhibits may obscure uncomfortable truths about slavery, inequality, and oppression.
Conclusion
The Smithsonian controversy highlights a broader national struggle over who controls the narrative of America’s past. The Trump administration frames its efforts as a push for clarity, unity, and factual representation.
Scholars, curators, and critics, however, warn that history risks being reshaped to fit a political agenda rather than reflecting reality. As the institution navigates these pressures, the nation watches closely: should museums document history as it unfolded—or as some wish to remember it?