With its executive order targeting the Smithsonian, the Trump administration opens up a new front in the history wars
I teach history in Connecticut, but I grew up in Oklahoma and Kansas, where my interest in the subject was sparked by visits to local museums.
I fondly remember trips to the Fellow-Reeves Museum in Wichita, Kansas, and the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum in Oklahoma City. A 1908 photograph of my great-grandparents picking cotton has been used as a poster by the Oklahoma Historical Society.
This love of learning history continued into my years as a graduate student of history, when I would spend hours at the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum learning about the history of human flight and ballooning. As a professor, I've integrated the institution's exhibits into my history courses.
The Trump administration, however, is not happy with the way the Smithsonian Institution and other U.S. museums are portraying history.
On March 27, 2025, the president issued an executive order, 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' which asserted, 'Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth. Under this historical revision, our Nation's unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.'
Trump singled out a few museums, including the Smithsonian, dedicating a whole section of the order on 'saving' the institution from 'divisive, race-centered ideology.'
Of course, history is contested. There will always be a variety of views about what should be included and excluded from America's story. For example, in my own research, I found that Prohibition-era school boards in the 1920s argued over whether it was appropriate for history textbooks to include pictures of soldiers drinking to illustrate the 1791 Whiskey Rebellion.
But most recent debates center on how much attention should be given to the history of the nation's accomplishments over its darker chapters. The Smithsonian, as a national institution that receives most of its funds from the federal government, has sometimes found itself in the crosshairs.
The Smithsonian Institution was founded in 1846 thanks to its namesake, British chemist James Smithson.
Smithson willed his estate to his nephew and stated that if his nephew died without an heir, the money – roughly US$15 million in today's dollars – would be donated to the U.S. to found 'an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.'
The idea of a national institution dedicated to history, science and learning was contentious from the start.
In her book 'The Stranger and the Statesman,' historian Nina Burleigh shows how Smithson's bequest was nearly lost due to battles between competing interests.
Southern plantation owners and western frontiersmen, including President Andrew Jackson, saw the establishment of a national museum as an unnecessary assertion of federal power. They also challenged the very idea of accepting a gift from a non-American and thought that it was beneath the dignity of the government to confer immortality on someone simply because of a large donation.
In the end, a group led by congressman and former president John Quincy Adams ensured Smithson's vision was realized. Adams felt that the country was failing to live up to its early promise. He thought a national museum was an important way to burnish the ideals of the young republic and educate the public.
Today the Smithsonian runs 14 education and research centers, the National Zoo and 21 museums, including the National Portrait Gallery and the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which was created with bipartisan support during President George W. Bush's administration.
In the introduction to his book 'Smithsonian's History of America in 101 Objects,' cultural anthropologist Richard Kurin talks about how the institution has also supported hundreds of small and large institutions outside of the nation's capital.
In 2024, the Smithsonian sent over 2 million artifacts on loan to museums in 52 U.S. states and territories and 33 foreign countries. It also partners with over 200 affiliate museums. YouGov has periodically tracked Americans' approval of the Smithsonian, which has held steady at roughly 68% approval and 2% disapproval since 2020.
Precursors to the Trump administration's efforts to reshape the Smithsonian took place in the 1990s.
In 1991, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, which was then known as the National Museum of American Art, created an exhibition titled 'The West as America, Reinterpreting Images of the Frontier, 1820-1920.' Conservatives complained that the museum portrayed western expansion as a tale of conquest and destruction, rather than one of progress and nation-building. The Wall Street Journal editorialized that the exhibit represented 'an entirely hostile ideological assault on the nation's founding and history.'
The exhibition proved popular: Attendance to the National Museum of American Art was 60% higher than it had been during the same period the year prior. But the debate raised questions about whether public museums were able to express ideas that are critical of the U.S. without risk of censorship.
In 1994, controversy again erupted, this time at the National Air and Space Museum over a forthcoming exhibition centered on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima 50 years prior.
Should the exhibition explore the loss of Japanese lives? Or emphasize the U.S. war victory?
Veterans groups insisted that the atomic bomb ended the war and saved 1 million American lives, and demanded the removal of photographs of the destruction and a melted Japanese school lunch box from the exhibit. Meanwhile, other activists protested the exhibition by arguing that a symbol of human destruction shouldn't be commemorated at an institution that's supposed to celebrate human achievement.
Republicans won the House in 1994 and threatened cuts to the Smithsonian's budget over the Enola Gay exhibition, compelling curators to walk a tightrope. In the end, the fuselage of the Enola Gay was displayed in the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. But the exhibit would not tell the full story of the plane's role in the war from a myriad of perspectives.
In 2019, The New York Times launched the 1619 project, which aimed to reframe the country's history by placing slavery and its consequences at its very center. The first Trump administration quickly responded by forming its 1776 commission. In January 2021, it produced a report critiquing the 1619 project, claiming that an emphasis on the country's history of racism and slavery was counterproductive to promoting 'patriotic education.'
That same year, Trump pledged to build 'a vast outdoor park that will feature the statues of the greatest Americans to ever live,' with 250 statues to mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
President Joe Biden rescinded the order in 2021. Trump reissued it after retaking the White House, and pointed to figures he'd like to see included, such as Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Betsy Ross, Sitting Bull, Bob Hope, Thurgood Marshall and Whitney Houston.
I don't think there is anything wrong with honoring Americans, though I think a focus on celebrities and major figures clouds the fascinating histories of ordinary Americans. I also find it troubling that there seems to be such a concerted effort to so forcefully shape the teaching and understanding of history via threats and bullying. Yale historian Jason Stanley has written about how aspiring authoritarian governments seek to control historical narratives and discourage an exploration of the complexities of the past.
Historical scholarship requires an openness to debate and a willingness to embrace new findings and perspectives. It also involves the humility to accept that no one – least of all the government – has a monopoly on the truth.
In his executive order, Trump noted that 'Museums in our Nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn.' I share that view. Doing so, however, means not dismantling history, but instead complicating the story – in all its messy glory.
The Conversation U.S. receives funding from the Smithsonian Institution.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jennifer Tucker, Wesleyan University
Read more:
From Greenland to Fort Bragg, America is caught in a name game where place names become political tools
Trump has purged the Kennedy Center's board, which in turn made him its chair – why does that matter?
Inside the collapse of Disney's America, the US history-themed park that almost was
Jennifer Tucker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hamilton Spectator
22 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Alberta resumes buying U.S. alcohol, months after pause meant to fight tariffs
EDMONTON - Alberta is buying American alcohol and gambling machines again, three months after Premier Danielle Smith announced restrictions aimed at fighting back against U.S. tariffs. Service Alberta Minister Dale Nally said Friday that the move signals a 'renewed commitment to open and fair trade' with the United States. Smith said in March that the province would no longer buy U.S. alcohol and video lottery terminals, or sign contracts with American companies. Alberta's liquor stores are privately owned but must order stock through the provincial government. That came a day after U.S. President Donald Trump slapped heavy tariffs on Canadian goods and energy. Other premiers also announced bans on U.S. liquor along with other proposed penalties. Nally said in a statement that the decision to resume buying U.S. alcohol and gambling machines 'sets the stage for more constructive negotiations' ahead of a renewal of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement. The agreement, known as CUSMA, was negotiated during the first Trump administration and is up for a mandatory review in 2026. 'Prime Minister Mark Carney has made a clear effort to reset the relationship with the U.S. administration, and Alberta's government supports this approach,' Nally said. 'We are focused on highlighting Alberta's role as a responsible and collaborative trading partner and will continue working alongside other provinces to advocate for a tariff-free relationship.' The minister said Albertans are encouraged to continue supporting local producers, even as more U.S. options return to store shelves. In April, the province paused its policy around procurement from U.S. companies in what Nally called 'the spirit of diplomacy.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Diplomatic win for UK hosting US-China trade talks
Sky News understands that the Trump administration approached the UK government to ask if it would host round two of the US-China trade talks. This is a useful 'diplo-win' for the UK. The first round was held in Geneva last month. News of that happening came as a surprise. The Chinese and the Americans were in the midst of a Trump-instigated trade war. President Trump was en route to Saudi Arabia and suddenly we got word of talks in Switzerland. They went surprisingly well. US treasury secretary Scott Bessent and his Chinese counterpart He Lifeng, met face-to-face and agreed to suspend most tariffs for 90 days. But two weeks later, the Trump administration accused Beijing of breaking the agreements reached in Geneva. Beijing threw the blame back at Washington. On Wednesday, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping spoke by phone. The Chinese claimed this call was at the Americans' request. Either way, the consequence was that the talks were back on track. "I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, trade deal," President Trump said this week. From that call came the impetus for a second round of talks. A venue was needed. In stepped the UK at short notice. Beyond being geographically convenient, UK government sources suggest that Britain is geopolitically in the right place right now to act as this bridge and facilitator. The UK-China relationship is in the process of a "reset". Other locations, like Brussels or other EU capitals, would have been less workable. Crucially too, for the UK, this is also potentially advantageous as it seeks to get its own UK-US trade agreement, to eliminate or massively reduce tariffs, over the line. Talks on reaching the "implementation phase" have been near-continuous since the announcement last month, but having the American principals in London is a plus. Sideline talks are possible, but even the presence of the US team in the UK is helpful. Read more from Sky News:Man wrongly deported from US to El Salvador has been returned to face criminal chargesMore than 40 'narco-boat' drug smugglers arrested in major police sting For all the chaos that President Trump is causing with his tariffs, he has instigated face-to-face conversations as he seeks resets. Key players are sitting down around tables - yes, to untangle the trade knots which Trump tied, but this whole episode has pulled foes together around the same table; it has forced relationships and maybe mutual understanding. That's useful. And for this next round, between superpowers, the UK is the host. Also useful.


Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Healey touts state tuition savings, criticizes federal cuts to Pell Grants
Overall, MASSGrant Plus Expansion program saved more than 34,000 Massachusetts students an estimated $110 million in the 2023-2024 academic year, the statement said. More than 7,730 middle income students saved an average of $3,856 each, according to data from the state Department of Higher Education, the statement said. Advertisement In the same statement, Healey urged the US Senate to reject Pell Grant cuts included in the federal budget reconciliation bill recently passed by Republicans in the U.S. House and supported by President Trump. The proposed cuts and eligibility restrictions would results in 42,000 Massachusetts students at public institutions losing $57 million in funding each year, according to Healey's statement said. 'Massachusetts is home to the best schools in the country, but we need to make sure that they are affordable for all of our students,' Healey's statement said. 'That's why I took action to increase financial aid at our public colleges and universities, which has already lowered costs for tens of thousands of students.' The drastic cuts proposed to the Pell Grant program would 'roll back the progress we have made and increase costs,' Healey said. Advertisement 'This is bad for our students and bad for our economy, as it would hold back our next generation of workers from being able to afford to go to school,' she said. Healey announced $62 million in new state funding to expand the MASSGrant program during a ceremony at Salem State University in November 2023. The new funding covered the full costs of tuition and mandatory instructional fees for Pell Grant-eligible students, and as much as half for middle-income students. Middle-income students are those whose families earn between $73,000 and $100,000 annually in adjusted gross income. The program was retroactive to the start of the fall 2023 semester for Massachusetts students at the states public institutions, including its 15 community colleges, nine state universities, and four University of Massachusetts undergraduate campuses. Funding for the expansion of the program also drew on $84 million Healey and the legislature had set earmarked for financial aid expansion in the FY24 budget, Healey's office said at the time. 'The dramatic enrollment increases our community colleges have seen over the last two years make it clear that free community college and expanded financial aid is a game changer for students in Massachusetts,' Luis Pedraja, chair of the Community College Council of Presidents, and president of Quinsigamond Community College said in the statement. 'The proposed Pell eligibility changes would be devastating to our students' ability to afford higher education and the community college presidents in Massachusetts urge the Senate to reject this ill-advised change,' Pedraja said. Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler said he feared the impacts proposed cuts could have on students who struggle to afford college. Advertisement 'Low-income students deserve to go to college just as much as their higher income peers, and these changes are going to take us backwards – increasing dropout rates and leaving students saddled with more debt and no degree," Tutwiler said in the statement. Tonya Alanez can be reached at