Since Washington, Donald Trump, now the American president, has expanded his crusade against "wokism" by targeting museums, after having focused on universities. On Truth Social, the American president made accusations against several institutions. He reproaches them for maintaining a "negative" view of national history. Notably, he criticizes their positions on slavery and segregation. In his announcement, he claims to have tasked his prosecutors with "examining" the museum policy of national museums as desired by Trump. Furthermore, he wishes to initiate a process similar to the one launched in higher education.
In the wake of this, the White House notified the Smithsonian Institution – a public network that administers more than 20 museums, libraries, and the National Zoo – of the opening of an internal review, at the heart of a controversy at the Smithsonian, to ensure their "alignment" with a narrative deemed "truthful and reasonable." This approach follows an executive order signed in March 2025 ("Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History"), which calls for promoting patriotic education, removing any "divisive narrative" from programs, and exalting American exceptionalism (official document: whitehouse.gov).
The Secretary of the Smithsonian, Lonnie G. Bunch III, recalled the scientific and educational mission of the institution, while the Board of Regents – a governing body that includes the Vice President and the Chief Justice – remains the legally competent authority to oversee museum policy (see Board of Regents).
Why this front now? A useful timeline and geography for Trump
A symbolic timeline. With one year to go before the celebrations of the 250th anniversary of independence (2026), the executive seeks to immediately frame the national narrative. The Smithsonian is preparing its own commemorative cycle (“Our Shared Future: 250”), while the America250 ecosystem is multiplying partnerships and programs (america250.org). By placing the battle of words as early as 2025, the White House imposes its markers (founding heroes, progress, unity). Consequently, it marginalizes approaches focused on historical inequalities.
A political geography. Washington D.C., a heavily Democratic city, concentrates the major national museums. Targeting the exhibitions on the Mall allows Trump to invest in a symbolic terrain where he is traditionally in a political minority: the capital and its cultural institutions. The message to his electorate is clear: take back "the house of History."
An old strategic thread. The offensive extends a dynamic initiated since 2019–2020. It includes the 1776 Commission on Patriotic Education and criticism of "DEI" programs. Moreover, it fights against "ideologies" in education. The anti-"woke" rhetoric – a term originating from African American struggles, now a tool-word of the right to disqualify anti-racist policies – provides a proven political grammar.
The immediate political gains for the White House
1) Occupying the agenda. By declaring that "wokism is over", Trump brings the criteria of historical truth back to the center of the debate. Furthermore, he diverts attention from other issues. The controversy guarantees successive media cycles: announcement, official letter, audits, counter-reactions, possible "corrections" of labels or exhibitions.
2) Reuniting the conservative coalition. The museum issue creates a common 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 efficiency. The hearings of the Board of Regents, exchanges with OMB, and monitoring of museums become proofs of action to present to the base.
3) Fundraising and micro-targeting. In the logic of the permanent campaign, the attack on museums offers a simple story to monetize: "protect our children from a ‘defeatist’ narrative." Emails and fundraising spots can rely on concrete examples of labels or panels deemed "ideological," and promise to "rebalance" the content.
4) Delegitimizing cultural counter-powers. By repeating that the Smithsonian is "out of control," the executive reframes conservatives as reformers facing supposedly militant elites. The desired effect: reduce the symbolic capital of curators, historians, and educators, and preempt the vocabulary of objectivity ("truth," "reason," "accuracy").
The levers mobilized: 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 injunction letters (White House, OMB). The executive can condition grants and budget priorities on editorial objectives, at least in the argument. In parallel, it launches thematic reviews.
The letter of August 12, 2025. An official letter to Secretary Lonnie Bunch sets a 120-day window to review labels, panels, digital supports, and communications. This deadline creates a temporal pressure that puts the institution on the defensive.
The legal uniqueness of the Smithsonian. Created in 1846 as a fiduciary 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. Additionally, it is led by a Secretary. This hybrid architecture (public trust, shared governance with Congress) limits de facto the direct control of the executive. Consequently, it opens the way to institutional frictions.
The crux of the matter: appropriation. Because the Smithsonian relies on a mixed funding (federal budgets + private donations), the most credible short-term threat is budgetary: prioritization, freezes, redeployments. On the private side, patrons can sanction or support. The executive bets on an intimidation effect: better to "realign" than risk financial tension on the eve of 2026.
A narrative framing: from 1776 to "exceptionalism"
The museum offensive is part of a war of narratives. After the post-2020 debates on slavery, racial memory, and monuments, the White House promotes a pedagogy of adherence. It highlights the founding heroes, national progress, and overcoming faults. It echoes the spirit of the 1776 Commission on Patriotic Education (created in 2020) and posits that certain frameworks – slave system, structural racism, state violence – are "divisive" and therefore unsuitable for a mobilizing narrative.
In response, the scientific community defends a documented history, attentive to shadows as well as achievements. For them, naming slavery, segregation, indigenous genocides, or gender exclusions is not "self-flagellation", but a condition of understanding. The Smithsonian has indeed built world-class references – from the National Museum of African American History and Culture to the National Museum of the American Indian – which attract millions of visits each year.
The risks: law, reputation, and the "Streisand effect"
Public law and freedom of expression. Even if the Smithsonian cooperates with the executive, any attempt at too explicit political editorialization will clash with constitutional principles (freedom of expression, state neutrality), and the institution’s sui generis status. The decisions of the Board of Regents and the governance practices (four annual meetings, specialized committees) offer safeguards. Legal disputes are likely if content were to be removed for ideological reasons.
Scientific reputation. Intervening on labels or exhibitions without curatorial consensus exposes to declines in adherence and a drop in international credibility. The network of researchers, academic journals, and professional organizations (AAM, AASLH) can mobilize against a prescriptive line.
Tourism and patronage. The museums on the Mall (American History, Air & Space, Natural History…) are attractiveness assets. A prolonged crisis could dissuade donors or reduce attendance. This would harm the image of the United States as 2026 approaches.
Streisand effect. Any attempt to dilute slavery or segregation in an euphoric narrative risks triggering the opposite effect: increased visibility of censored subjects, multiplication of manifesto visits, proliferation of alternative projects (podcasts, off-site exhibitions, online educational content).
A method: govern by controversy, polarize to exist
The attack on museums illustrates a proven method: create a simple cultural conflict, over-polarize the debate ("patriots" vs. "revisionists"), then capitalize on emotion and indignation. The "anti-woke" theme acts as a catch-all signifier: it aggregates cultural conservatives, nationalists, and libertarians hostile to public regulation.
This narrative also allows for reassigning roles: 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 defines the neutral and accuses the adversary of "ideology."
What Trump can gain in the medium term
A framing narrative for 2026. If the pressure results in visible adjustments (labels, texts, room arrangements), the executive can claim a "patriotic reorientation" of national institutions at the time of the Semiquincentennial.
A lasting lever on programming. Even without massively rewriting exhibitions, the establishment of regular reviews and "alignment" criteria sets a standard. Consequently, other actors like national parks, state museums, and private foundations could imitate this standard.
A symbolic victory in the capital. Successfully constraining the Smithsonian, even marginally, would constitute a political trophy in a city not very supportive of the president.
Red lines and "points to watch"
- The 120-day deadline: what revisions will be announced?
- The first targeted museums (Air & Space, American History, African American History and Culture, American Indian): what label modifications and what adjusted paths?
- The role of the Board of Regents: public arbitrations, votes, and possible dissensions between congressional and citizen regents.
- The reaction of professional associations: positions taken, ethical codes recalled, offers of mediation.
- Funding: budgetary signals in federal appropriation projects; movements of major donors.
- Attendance indicators: Smithsonian visits exceeded **17 million in 2023; the 2025–2026 trajectory will indicate whether the controversy attracts or dissuades.
Strategic assessment: narrative gains, legal risks
By opening a front against museums, Donald Trump chooses a fighter with strong symbolic value: History itself. The bet is clear: impose an interpretative framework before 2026, mobilize his base, and domesticate a cultural space perceived as hostile. However, the legal and institutional constraints of the Smithsonian limit the extent of a takeover. Between narrative gains and risks of backlash, the outcome will depend less on slogans than on procedures, budgets, and the resolve of scientific and citizen communities.
On August 20, 2025, in Washington, Donald Trump extended his anti-"wokeism" crusade to national museums, ordering legal reviews and a narrative "realignment," notably of the Smithsonian Institution. Stated objective: impose a "truthful and reasonable" reading of History before the 2026 commemorations. Real issue: reshape the cultural power dynamics and consolidate his political coalition.