On August 13, 2025, the White House announced a sweeping review of the Smithsonian Institution’s museum exhibitions, materials, and operations. The move, which comes as the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, has sparked immediate debate and drawn sharp attention from historians, museum professionals, and the public. According to ABC News, the review is intended to ensure that the Smithsonian’s exhibits align more closely with former President Donald Trump’s view of American history—a directive that, unsurprisingly, has ignited controversy across the political spectrum.
The Smithsonian Institution, often called “the nation’s attic,” is a sprawling network of museums and research centers in Washington, D.C., and beyond. Its collections range from the Star-Spangled Banner to the Apollo 11 command module, and its exhibitions have long sought to reflect the complexity and diversity of the American experience. Now, as reported by NBC News, the White House is stepping in to scrutinize how that history is told, with an eye toward reshaping the narrative in line with Trump’s perspective.
The timing of the review is no accident. America’s semiquincentennial—the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence—will be celebrated in 2026. As the country gears up for this milestone, the Smithsonian’s role as storyteller-in-chief has never been more prominent. The White House’s decision to intervene signals a desire to influence which stories are elevated and how they are framed during this historic moment.
Officials have described the review as “wide-ranging,” encompassing not just exhibit content but also educational materials and operational practices. According to ABC News, the goal is to “align the Smithsonian exhibits with former President Trump’s view of history.” While the specifics of what this alignment entails remain somewhat vague, the intent is clear: to ensure that the narrative presented by the Smithsonian reflects a version of history favored by Trump and his supporters.
This approach has raised eyebrows among museum professionals and historians, many of whom see the Smithsonian as a bastion of scholarly independence. The concern, as voiced by critics, is that political pressure could compromise the institution’s commitment to accuracy and inclusivity. The Smithsonian has traditionally prided itself on presenting multiple perspectives, even when they are uncomfortable or controversial. The prospect of a top-down mandate to reshape exhibits according to a particular political viewpoint is, for many, deeply troubling.
Yet supporters of the review argue that the Smithsonian, like all public institutions, should be responsive to the will of the people—especially as interpreted by their elected leaders. They point out that history is often contested terrain and that debates over how to remember the past are nothing new. In their view, the White House’s involvement is a legitimate exercise of oversight, particularly given the scale and significance of the upcoming anniversary.
According to NBC News, the review will unfold over the coming months, with teams of officials and outside advisors expected to examine everything from permanent galleries to temporary exhibitions. The process is likely to be both comprehensive and contentious, with stakeholders from across the political and cultural landscape weighing in.
While the White House has not released a detailed blueprint for the review, sources familiar with the process suggest that particular attention will be paid to exhibits dealing with America’s founding, its military history, and its role on the world stage. These are areas where Trump’s perspective has often diverged from prevailing academic interpretations. For example, Trump has frequently emphasized themes of American greatness, economic achievement, and military strength, while downplaying or criticizing narratives that highlight systemic injustice or the struggles of marginalized groups.
The question of how to balance these competing perspectives is at the heart of the current controversy. On one hand, there are those who argue that the Smithsonian should resist any attempt to politicize its work, insisting on scholarly rigor and a multiplicity of voices. On the other hand, some believe that the institution has, in recent years, strayed too far toward what they see as a revisionist or negative portrayal of American history, and that a course correction is overdue.
For many Americans, the Smithsonian is more than just a collection of artifacts—it is a symbol of national identity and a forum for public memory. The stakes, therefore, are high. As the nation prepares to mark its 250th birthday, the stories told within the Smithsonian’s walls will help shape how Americans understand their past and imagine their future.
It’s worth noting that this is not the first time the Smithsonian has found itself at the center of a political storm. In the 1990s, for instance, the proposed Enola Gay exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum sparked fierce debate over how to present the history of the atomic bomb. More recently, controversies have erupted over the representation of slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the role of immigration in American life. Each time, the institution has faced pressure from various quarters to adjust its narrative—sometimes yielding, sometimes standing firm.
What makes the current situation unique is the explicit directive to align with a former president’s view of history. This raises thorny questions about the relationship between political power and cultural memory. Should a government administration have the authority to dictate how history is presented in publicly funded museums? Or does such intervention risk turning the Smithsonian into a vehicle for propaganda?
As the review gets underway, all eyes will be on how the Smithsonian responds. Will it resist efforts to reshape its exhibits, or will it acquiesce to the White House’s demands? And how will the public react to any changes that emerge? For now, there are more questions than answers.
One thing is certain: the debate over the Smithsonian’s future is a microcosm of larger battles over history, identity, and power in America today. As the country approaches its 250th anniversary, the struggle over how to remember the past is as fierce—and as consequential—as ever.
With the White House’s review just beginning, the coming months will likely see heated discussions, public forums, and perhaps even protests. The outcome will shape not only the Smithsonian’s exhibitions but also the broader national conversation about who we are and how we got here. For a nation on the cusp of a major milestone, the stakes could hardly be higher.
