Rewriting History: The Political Battle Over the Smithsonian and American Memory
The Trump Administration’s recent executive order puts the Smithsonian Institution and its millions of artifacts at risk. Source: Nate Lee / Wikimedia Commons
The Smithsonian Institution— the world’s largest museum, education, and research complex, composed of a vast network of historical sites, galleries, and libraries—recently came under fire in an executive order from the Trump administration, calling for the removal of all “improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology” from its facilities.
Delegating its enforcement to Vice President J.D. Vance, the order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” criticized several museums and exhibits by name. It cites a recent exhibit by the American Art Museum, “The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture,” which acknowledges the centrality of race in upholding systems of power in the US and other societies, the executive order claims that the Smithsonian has fallen under a “divisive, race-centered ideology.” It also targets the impending American Women’s History Museum, prohibiting it from recognizing “men as women,” a term the administration has used for transgender women. This museum, which does not currently have a physical building, is not expected to break ground for another 10 years.
Notably, the order tasks the Secretary of the Interior—a recent Trump appointee, Doug Burgum—with evaluating and reinstating monuments and memorials that have been removed or changed to “perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history.” This action is presumably a response to the removal of Confederate monuments and symbols following the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, an effort President Trump has repeatedly taken issue with. During his first term, after crowds brought down a D.C. statue of Confederate General Albert Pike on Juneteenth, Trump signed an executive order to further criminalize the destruction or vandalism of monuments. The order was shortly overturned under the Biden administration and subsequently reinstated this January through a directive establishing a task force to celebrate the upcoming 250th anniversary of American independence.
While the administration’s condemnation of the Smithsonian may have shocked some, its rhetoric is hardly unfamiliar territory for the President. The executive order’s criticism of all historical narratives contrary to unadulterated US excellence echoes comments Trump made back in 2020 during a speech marking the anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution, where he invoked similar themes of American exceptionalism. He went on to denounce movements like Black Lives Matter and what he called the “left-wing indoctrination” occurring in the American education system, likening the teaching of critical race theory in schools to a “form of child abuse.” In this speech, he also announced the formation of the 1776 Commission, a body tasked with promoting patriotic education. This committee was recently revived in a January executive order titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.” These orders, along with this recent attack on the Smithsonian, seemingly signal a concerted effort to reorient educational institutions towards the ideological goals of the current administration, as tensions mount between the Trump Administration and academia more broadly.
In March, the White House notably cancelled $400 million in grants to Columbia University under claims of anti-semitism. The university was given a list of demands—including banning face masks on campus, allowing campus security guards to remove or arrest students, and giving the federal government control over the department that offers courses on the Middle East—most of which they complied with. Since then, the Trump administration has threatened similar funding cuts to universities like Brown, Cornell, Harvard, Princeton, and others. Princeton’s President Christopher Eisgruber has been an outspoken advocate against these efforts, which he sees as an attack on academic freedom. In March, Eisgruber said, “Academic freedom is a fundamental principle of universities—it has to be protected.” The White House has since indicated that Princeton is currently at risk of losing up to $210 million in federal funds.
Given the Smithsonian’s status as a public-private partnership governed by a Board of Regents, it is unclear whether the administration has similar leverage over it. Lonnie Bunch III, the Secretary of the Smithsonian and founding director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, has been careful in his response to the administration’s criticisms of the institution. In an email following the executive order’s announcement, he wrote, “As always, our work will be shaped by the best scholarship, free of partisanship, to help the American public better understand our nation’s history, challenges, and triumphs.”
While Secretary Bunch is well-known for his ability to work across the aisle and handle complex situations such as this, many historians worry about the wider precedent this order might set for historical truth and collective memory. In an article for Foreign Policy, historian David M. Perry marks the order as an attempt to use the American Independence anniversary moment to “intensify national mythmaking” and construct a fabled past of the country to legitimize the current administration. Perry counters what he sees as the order’s assertion that “patriotism emerges from the denial of the messiness, the ugliness, of history,” arguing that a more nuanced understanding of a nation’s past, one that accounts for the good and the bad, represents true patriotism.
Though its impacts are still unfolding, the recent executive order targeting the Smithsonian appears to be part of a broader, coordinated effort by the Trump administration to assert influence over educational and cultural institutions. As the United States prepares for the 250th anniversary of its independence, which Trump has stated will “showcase the glory of every state in the Union, promote pride in our history, and put forth innovative visions for America’s future,” debates over the narrative of American history and whose version of it will dominate are likely to intensify. Whether this executive order sets a lasting precedent for the politicization of historical interpretation remains to be seen, but framing the Smithsonian as a battle for modern-day culture wars will undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing discussion about how history is presented in the public sphere.