President Donald Trump has ignited a heated national debate with his latest directive: a sweeping federal review of the Smithsonian Institution’s largest museums. Announced on August 12, 2025, just months before the nation’s 250th birthday, the move has drawn both applause and outrage from across the political spectrum, as Americans grapple with questions of how their history should be told.
At the heart of the controversy is Trump’s accusation that Smithsonian museums focus excessively on the darker chapters of U.S. history—especially slavery and oppression—while neglecting stories of achievement, unity, and hope. In a Truth Social post that quickly went viral, Trump declared, “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.” He added, “We are not going to allow this to happen, and I have instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made.”
The White House formalized the review in a letter to Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch, stating the goal is to ensure that national museums “reflect the unity, progress, and enduring values that define the American story.” The review, authorized under Executive Order 14253—Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History—will scrutinize all publicly available museum content, collections, curatorial guidelines, and the overarching narratives promoted by the Smithsonian’s biggest institutions.
Eight museums are included in the first phase: the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of the American Indian, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. Museums must submit exhibition materials within 30 days, participate in staff interviews within 75 days, and begin revisions within 120 days.
Trump’s move is hardly without precedent. The Smithsonian, founded by Congress in 1846, oversees 21 museums and receives the majority of its funding—about 62%—from the federal government, making it subject to federal oversight. Trump and his supporters argue that this funding gives the government the right, and perhaps even the responsibility, to ensure that these institutions present a balanced view of American history. “If you take federal funds, the people who approve the federal spending can impose conditions. It’s that simple,” wrote Fox News, echoing a sentiment that resonates with many conservatives.
Critics, however, see the review as a thinly veiled attempt at censorship and historical revisionism. On ABC’s “World News Tonight,” reporter Mary Bruce described Trump as “targeting what he calls woke exhibits, saying museums should focus more on America’s, quote, brightness, and not on, quote, ‘how bad slavery was.’” CBS Evening News anchor John Dickerson went further, suggesting that Trump’s actions risk minimizing or censoring the realities of slavery, which he called an affront to “American exceptionalism” and the memory of those who fought to end it.
Some of the exhibits flagged by the White House as problematic include a circus poster described as reflecting “colonial dominance,” an exhibit comparing the Lone Ranger’s partnership with Tonto to America’s “global power,” and a panel linking Mickey Mouse’s early design to “minstrel traditions.” According to The Dallas Express, the White House insists the review is “purely constructive,” with the aim of supporting a vision of excellence that is “historically accurate, uplifting, and inclusive.”
But the question of how to present America’s past—especially the legacy of slavery—remains deeply divisive. Scholars and historians are unequivocal in acknowledging the horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, which forcibly displaced between 12.5 and 15 million Africans between the 16th and 19th centuries. Of those, about 10 million survived the perilous journey to the Americas, while an estimated 1.8 million died from disease, malnutrition, or violence aboard slave ships. As reported by BBC, the Middle Passage was a “floating dungeon,” rife with smallpox and other diseases, where enslaved people were chained together in appalling conditions.
The violence didn’t end with the crossing. Enslaved Africans faced whippings, branding, mutilation, and public executions. After the 1739 Stono Rebellion in South Carolina, at least 20 rebels were executed, their heads displayed on pikes. Sexual exploitation was rampant, as documented by Harriet Jacobs in her memoir, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. Families were torn apart, cultural identities erased, and generations consigned to forced labor that fueled the economic rise of the United States and European powers. The Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, for example, highlights how slave markets in places like Charleston, South Carolina, separated children from parents and spouses from each other.
The economic legacy of slavery endures. Analysts point out that the typical White household in the U.S. has 9.2 times the wealth of the typical Black household, a disparity largely rooted in the denial of economic opportunity to African Americans during and after slavery. The abolition of slavery in the 19th century did not erase its consequences; instead, racial prejudice deepened, giving rise to Jim Crow laws that enforced segregation and created intergenerational trauma for descendants of the enslaved.
Media reactions have been predictably polarized. PBS News described Trump’s initiative as part of a pattern to “reframe historical narratives about racism and discrimination.” NPR gave a platform to Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the 1619 Project, who argued that Trump is trying to create a “mythic past” as a distraction from democratic erosion. On the other hand, some voices in the center, such as CBS’s Tony Dokoupil, suggested there is “room for correction back toward the middle,” arguing that America is “not above critique,” but that its history shouldn’t be viewed solely through a lens of contempt.
Meanwhile, the American Alliance of Museums has pushed back, asserting that “no president has the power to impose the kind of review that Trump is demanding.” Yet, the administration maintains that federal funding comes with strings attached, and that the review is about balance, not erasure. “Our goal is not to interfere with the day-to-day operations of curators or staff, but rather to support a broader vision of excellence,” the White House stated.
As the Smithsonian’s deadline to submit materials approaches, the nation finds itself at a crossroads. The debate over how to tell America’s story—warts and all—remains as contentious as ever, with both sides claiming the mantle of truth and patriotism. Whether the review will bring about the “unity, progress, and enduring values” the White House envisions, or deepen existing divides, remains to be seen.
For now, the eyes of the country are fixed on the halls of its most storied museums, waiting to see which version of history will take center stage.
