Trump orders Smithsonian to swap hard truths for national cheer in sweeping “anti-woke” exhibit review

21 August 2025

A sign for The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden exhibition inside the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History in Washington DC on 1 August. Photograph: Annabelle Gordon/Reuters

The Trump administration has ignited a culture clash over America's museums by targeting the Smithsonian Institution in a bold campaign to reshape how the nation’s history is presented. With an anchor in a March executive order titled Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, the White House is now rolling out an ideological purge across major Smithsonian exhibits, demanding a recalibration toward narratives of patriotism, unity, and national achievement.

As part of this effort, White House attorneys are combing through curatorial content, educational programs, digital presentations, and partnerships across at least eight museums including the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the Air and Space Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, and the Hirshhorn. The goal is to ensure exhibits no longer dwell on themes of slavery, racial injustice, or other perceived divisions but instead amplify "American exceptionalism."

President Trump has harshly criticized the Smithsonian for emphasizing "how bad slavery was," claiming that institutional focus has become overly negative and ideological. He declared the Smithsonian "out of control" and framed the review as part of a broader fight against entrenched "woke" orthodoxies in cultural institutions.

The administration’s messaging roots itself in a belief that taxpayer-supported museums should celebrate the nation's milestones not spotlight its moral failings. The White House has instructed the Smithsonian to submit content explanations and corrections within 30 days, promising a full audit and expectations for overhaul ahead of the U.S. bicentennial in 2026.

The Smithsonian has responded with cautious diplomacy, reaffirming its commitment to scholarly rigor and telling press that its mission remains to accurately chronicle warts and all= America’s history. Meanwhile, the institution is also internally reassessing content following pressure to downplay politically sensitive subject matter. Among recent actions: the National Museum of American History softened references to Trump's impeachments in a display, while multiple exhibits addressing White privilege or colonial wrongs now face heightened scrutiny.

The move has provoked alarm from historians, curators, and cultural commentators. A letter to the editor warned that efforts to rewrite history echo authoritarian patterns recalling (with chilling irony) book burnings under Nazi Germany and enforced ideological conformity in totalitarian regimes.

Supporters of the policy argue it corrects a historical imbalance and restores pride in a neglected narrative. CBS host Tony Dokoupil echoed that view, calling for a balanced presentation that fosters unity and pride though co-anchor Gayle King publicly challenged the amendment, citing concerns that omitting uncomfortable truths weakens public understanding.

The debate sits at the crossroads of politics and public memory. On one hand, a federally funded institution faces executive pressure to align exhibits with a partisan view of patriotism. On the other, defenders of academic and curatorial independence warn that sanitizing history undermines the nation's educational mission and destabilizes public trust.

Ultimately, this showdown over museum narratives poses a critical question: in crafting a national heritage, can discomfort be excised without distorting the story of America? And what remains of a society that recalls only the triumphs and not the trials?