What historians say is at risk if Trump expands his culture war beyond Smithsonian
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
President Trump tours an exhibit at the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, DC, in 2017. Photo: Saul Loeb via AFP via Getty Images.
A White House official told Axios that President Trump intends to expand his review of American museums for "woke" ideology beyond the Smithsonian Institution.
Why it matters: The size and scope of Trump's inquiries represents an unprecedented level of museum oversight in the nearly 250 years of American democracy, historians say. It also represents an escalation of the president's attack on cultural institutions.
Here's what historians and curators fear could happen if Trump reframes museums through his perspective.
What exactly does the president have in mind?
Trump said that the "Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL" on Truth Social earlier this week.
- He then directed his attorneys to conduct a comprehensive review of the museum system, similar to the process officials have conducted at colleges and universities.
What they're saying: "President Trump will explore all options and avenues to get the Woke out of the Smithsonian and hold them accountable," a White House official told Axios.
- "He will start with the Smithsonian and then go from there," they continued.
Reality check: The Smithsonian is not a federal agency under control of the president, according to the institution.
- It's an independent institution, governed by a Board of Regents, which is composed of seventeen members, including the Vice President.
- Trump has no authority over private museums.
Yes, but: The president could freeze the federal funding that some private museums receive, the way he has for schools that don't align with his anti-diversity views on education.
What does Trump's perception of American history look like?
Trump claims that there has been a "widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history" over the past decade.
- He insists that these efforts "undermine" America's achievements by casting its founding principles as "inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed."
Historians say the administration's singular, sanitized approach to the past, focusing solely on America's positive moments misses out on the nuance of American history and excludes the lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, Latino, and LGBTQ+ people.
Friction point: "That is anti-democratic," Beth English, executive director of the Organization of American Historians told Axios, referring to the administration's push to stifle and sanitize information, debate and historical facts.
- "It's not education, right?" English questioned. "It begins to kind of veer into the space of indoctrination, selecting, sort of a selective memory of what is and isn't going to be part of our national story."
Why is Trump's push to install political appointees to review museums problematic?
Curators said distilling history into accurate, engaging examples that the public can understand requires a level of expertise that an untrained political appointee likely lacks.
- The majority of curators at national museums have PhDs, or have been trained in museum studies through rigorous degree programs and research.
- "It's not like people are creating exhibitions to tell a story, to win a political agenda," Omar Eaton-Martinez, former board president of the Association of African American Museums said.
- "People are actually curating exhibitions based on scholarship that is supported by evidence," he continued.
Don't museums reframe and reevaluate history all the time?
Historians say museums expanding their collections isn't evidence of nefarious behavior, but rather, it's simply how the static nature of history grows.
Zoom out: Collections have increasingly included the perspectives of sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists over the past few decades, in addition to more thorough reviews of census records, genealogy, oral histories, archeology, objects, and images.
- "We're constantly building on prior scholarship to help ask more nuanced questions about a topic," Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association said. "We're always peeling back the layers of the onion, so to speak."
Black, Indigenous and Latin scholars have been digging into their respective histories for centuries, and those experiences have been recognized and incorporated into museums in recent decades.
- That includes history that was once ignored, such as the burning of records in thriving Black neighborhoods such as the massacres in Tulsa, Oklahoma or Rosewood, Florida; the forced removal of Indigenous nations from one part of America to another during the "trail of tears"; and urban renewal projects to upgrade cities that ultimately gentrify communities of color.
What funding and programs has Trump already taken aim at?
The Trump administration has taken aggressive action to reduce the staffing and funding available for the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS,) the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Endowment for the Arts.
Stunning stat: IMLS's acting director testified in court that the administration cancelled roughly 92% of the agency's Grants to States.
- Only 100 grants remain out of the original 1,200 managed by the institute prior to Trump's executive order.
The president also attempted to fire Kim Sajet, the director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, earlier this year due to her support of diversity initiatives, despite not having the authority to do so.
- The Smithsonian has legal authority over personnel decisions, but Sajet eventually decided to step down in the weeks following Trump's announcement.
What other times has an American museum pivoted after political influence?
An exorbitant amount of debate goes into exhibit decision-making, so museums have already determined the best way to display potential controversies.
- When museums modify exhibits, it's typically due to public pressure, and has never been under significant force from the president.
Case in point: The Smithsonian's 90s exhibit on Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber that dropped the atomic bomb, sparked opposition from veterans and members of Congress on how to interpret the bomb's dropping and America's role in World War II.
The bottom line: "These kinds of controversies exist frequently, and that's a good thing, because public debate about the nation's past is healthy," James Grossman, former executive director of the American Historical Association told Axios.
- "But the President of the United States has no business telling museums what to exhibit, telling teachers what to teach, and has no business telling Americans what to think," Grossman continued.
Go deeper:
