Credits: Zack Frank, Smithsonian American Art Museum / Wikimedia Commons — CC BY-SA 3.0.
From Washington, Donald Trump, now U.S. president, has expanded his crusade against “wokeism” by targeting museums, after having gone after universities. On Truth Social, the U.S. president made accusations against several institutions. He accused them of fostering a “negative” view of national history. In particular, he criticizes their positions regarding slavery and segregation. In his announcement, he says he has instructed his prosecutors to “review” Trump’s desired policy for national museums. He also wants to launch a process comparable to the one initiated in higher education.
In the wake of this, the White House notified the Smithsonian Institution—a public network that runs more than 20 museums, libraries, and the National Zoo—of the opening of an internal review, at the center of a controversy at the Smithsonian, to ensure their “alignment” with a narrative described as “truthful and reasonable.” This move follows an executive order signed in March 2025 (“Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History”), which calls for promoting patriotic education, purging all “divisive narratives” from curricula, and extolling American exceptionalism (official document: whitehouse.gov).
The Smithsonian Secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch III, has reiterated the institution’s scientific and educational mission, while the Board of Regents—the governing body that includes, notably, the Vice President and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—remains the legally competent body for overseeing museum policy (see Board of Regents).
Why This Front Now? A Useful Timeline and Geography for Trump
A symbolic timeline. One year before the celebrations of the 250th anniversary of independence (2026), the executive branch is seeking to frame the national story from the outset. The Smithsonian is preparing its own commemorative cycle (“Our Shared Future: 250”), while the America250 ecosystem is multiplying partnerships and programming (america250.org). By putting the battle over words in 2025, the White House is setting its markers (founding heroes, progress, unity). As a result, it sidelines approaches centered on historical inequalities.
Political geography. Washington, D.C., a heavily Democratic city, concentrates the major national museums. Going after the exhibitions on the Mall allows Trump to enter a symbolic battleground where he is traditionally in the political minority: the capital and its cultural institutions. The message to his base is clear: take back “the house of history.”
An old strategic thread. The offensive extends a dynamic launched in 2019–2020. It includes the 1776 Commission on Patriotic Education and criticism of “DEI” programs. In addition, it fights “ideologies” in education. The anti-“woke” rhetoric—a term born in African American struggles, now turned into a political buzzword by the right to discredit antiracist policies—provides a tested political grammar.
The Immediate Political Gains for the White House
1) Seize the agenda. By declaring that “wokeism is over,” Trump puts the standards of historical truth back at the center of the debate. He also diverts attention from other issues. The controversy guarantees successive media cycles: announcement, official letter, audits, pushback, and possible “corrections” to labels or exhibits.
2) Reunite the conservative coalition. The museum file creates a shared cause among Republican elected officials, anti-“woke” activist groups, think tanks, and allied media. For key figures—Vice President J. D. Vance, now ex officio regent—it is a test of loyalty and bureaucratic effectiveness. Hearings of the Board of Regents, exchanges with the OMB, and oversight of museums become proof of action to present to the base.
3) Fundraising and microtargeting. In the logic of permanent campaigning, the attack on museums offers a simple story to monetize: “protecting our children from a ‘defeatist’ narrative.” Fundraising emails and ads can draw on concrete examples of labels or placards deemed “ideological,” and promise to “rebalance” the content.
4) Undermine cultural checks and balances. By repeating that the Smithsonian is “out of control,” the executive branch recasts conservators as reformers standing up to supposedly activist elites. The intended effect: reduce the symbolic capital of curators, historians, and educators, and preempt the vocabulary of objectivity (“truth,” “reason,” “accuracy”).
The Levers Being Used: Law, Governance, and Public Money
The March 2025 executive order. By setting a presidential standard of “historical truth,” the Executive Order provides an administrative basis for circulars and directive letters (White House, OMB). The executive branch can condition grants and budget priorities on editorial objectives, at least in the argument. At the same time, it launches thematic reviews.
The August 12, 2025 letter. An official letter to Secretary Lonnie Bunch sets a 120-day window to review labels, panels, digital materials, and communications. This deadline creates time pressure that puts the institution on the defensive.
The Smithsonian’s legal uniqueness. Created in 1846 as a trust instrumentality of the federal government, the Smithsonian is not an ordinary executive agency. It is governed by a Board of Regents of 17 members, including the Vice President and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It is also led by a Secretary. This hybrid structure (public trust, shared governance with Congress) limits de facto direct executive control. As a result, it opens the door to institutional friction.
The real issue: funding. Because the Smithsonian relies on mixed funding (federal budgets + private donations), the most credible short-term threat is budgetary: prioritization, freezes, redeployments. On the private side, donors can punish or support. The executive branch is betting on an intimidation effect: better to “realign” than risk financial hardening on the eve of 2026.
A Narrative Frame: From 1776 to “Exceptionalism”
The museum offensive is part of a war of narratives. After the post-2020 debates over slavery, racial memory, and monuments, the White House is promoting a pedagogy of belonging. It highlights the founding heroes, national progress, and the overcoming of past wrongs. It revives the spirit of the 1776 Commission on Patriotic Education (created in 2020) and argues that certain interpretive frameworks—slave system, structural racism, state violence—would be “divisive” and therefore unsuitable for a mobilizing national story.
Against this, scientific circles defend a documented history, attentive to dark chapters as well as achievements. For them, naming slavery, segregation, Indigenous genocides, or gender exclusions is not “self-flagellation,” but a prerequisite for understanding. The Smithsonian has also built world-class benchmarks—from the National Museum of African American History and Culture to the National Museum of the American Indian—that draw millions of visitors each year.
The Risks: Law, Reputation, and the “Streisand Effect”
Public law and freedom of expression. Even if the Smithsonian cooperates with the executive branch, any overly explicit attempt at political editorializing will run into constitutional principles (freedom of expression, state neutrality) and the institution’s sui generis status. Decisions by the Board of Regents and governance practices (four annual meetings, specialized committees) provide safeguards. Litigation is likely if content were to be removed for ideological reasons.
Scientific reputation. Intervening on labels or gallery layouts without curatorial consensus exposes the institution to backlash and a loss of international credibility. The research community, academic journals, and professional organizations (AAM, AASLH) may mobilize against a line seen as prescriptive.
Tourism and philanthropy. The museums on the Mall (American History, Air & Space, Natural History…) are major draws. A prolonged crisis could discourage donors or reduce attendance. That would hurt the image of the United States ahead of 2026.
Streisand effect. Any attempt to soften slavery or segregation into an upbeat narrative risks triggering the opposite effect: increased visibility for censored topics, more protest visits, and a surge of alternative projects (podcasts, off-site exhibits, online educational content).
A Method: Govern Through Controversy, Polarize to Exist
The attack on museums illustrates a tried-and-true method: create a simple cultural conflict, over-polarize the debate (“patriots” vs. “revisionists”), then capitalize on emotion and outrage. The anti-woke theme acts as an all-purpose signifier: it brings together cultural conservatives, nationalists, and libertarians hostile to public regulation.
This narrative also allows roles to be reassigned: the museum is no longer a space of expertise and mediation, but a supposed political actor. In response, the White House presents itself as the guardian of neutrality and “reason.” The loop closes: the executive branch defines the neutral and accuses the opponent of “ideology.”
What Trump Can Gain From This in the Medium Term
A framing story for 2026. If the pressure leads to visible adjustments (labels, texts, room arrangements), the executive branch will be able to claim a “patriotic realignment” of national institutions at the time of the Semiquincentennial.
A lasting lever over programming. Even without rewriting exhibits on a large scale, the creation of regular reviews and “alignment” criteria establishes a norm. As a result, other actors such as national parks, state museums, and private foundations could copy this norm.
A symbolic win in the capital. Managing to force the Smithsonian, even marginally, would be a political trophy in a city that is not inclined toward the president.
Red Lines and “Points to Watch”
- The 120-day deadline: what revisions will be announced?
- The first museums targeted (Air & Space, American History, African American History and Culture, American Indians): what label changes and what gallery layouts are adjusted?
- The role of the Board of Regents: public arbitrations, votes, and possible splits between congressional and citizen regents.
- The reaction of professional associations: statements, recalled ethics codes, offers of mediation.
- Funding: budget signals in federal appropriations bills; moves by major donors.
- Attendance figures: Smithsonian visits exceeded 17 million in 2023; the 2025–2026 trend will show whether the controversy draws or deters.
Strategic Assessment: Narrative Gains, Legal Risks
By opening a front against museums, Donald Trump is choosing an opponent with high symbolic value: History itself. The bet is clear: impose an interpretive framework before 2026, mobilize his base, and domesticate a cultural space perceived as hostile. The legal and institutional constraints of the Smithsonian nevertheless limit the scope of any takeover. Between narrative gains and backlash risks, the outcome will depend less on slogans than on procedures, budgets, and the staying power of scientific and civic communities.
On August 20, 2025, in Washington, Donald Trump extended his anti-“wokeism” crusade to the national museums, ordering legal reviews and a narrative “realignment,” including at the Smithsonian Institution. Stated goal: impose a “truthful and reasonable” reading of History before the 2026 commemorations. The real stake: reshaping the balance of cultural power and strengthening his political coalition.