White House Demands Thorough Review of Smithsonian Museums so All Exhibits Match Trump's Interpretation of U.S. History
Donald Trump's White House sent a letter to the Smithsonian this week, directing the institution to ensure its museums align with the president's vision, according to The Wall Street Journal
Eight Smithsonian museums have been directed to thoroughly review and update their exhibitions, internal communications, featured artists and more
The directive comes with a deadline, as the Trump administration readies its plans for America's 250th anniversary next yearThe White House continued its cultural crackdown on the Smithsonian this week, pressuring the institution to review its exhibits and operations and align them with President Donald Trump's view of American history.
On Tuesday, Aug. 12, The Wall Street Journal reported on a letter that was sent by three top White House officials to Smithsonian secretary Lonnie Bunch. According to the outlet, the letter followed up on the directive laid out in Trump's March 27 executive order, titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History," which targeted the Smithsonian museums by name.
The executive order read, in part, "Once widely respected as a symbol of American excellence and a global icon of cultural achievement, the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology. This shift has promoted narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive."
https://people-app.onelink.me/HNIa/kz7l4cuf
The new White House letter offers specifics on how the Smithsonian can achieve "alignment" with the president's vision.
Following a thorough review of exhibitions, internal communications, visitor surveys, featured artists, outside partners and more, the museums are then instructed to make updates that replace "divisive or ideologically driven" language with "unifying, historically accurate" content.
The directive comes with a deadline, as the Trump administration readies its plans for America's 250th anniversary celebration in Washington next year. The Smithsonian is expected to submit extensive documentation of its review within 30 days before starting to make the expected changes.
'This is about preserving trust in one of our most cherished institutions,' said White House senior associate Lindsay Halligan, one of the officials who signed the letter, in a statement. 'The Smithsonian museums and exhibits should be accurate, patriotic, and enlightening—ensuring they remain places of learning, wonder, and national pride for generations to come.'
The Smithsonian was diplomatic in its reply to the White House letter, saying, 'The Smithsonian's work is grounded in a deep commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history. We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and our governing Board of Regents.'
However, The Wall Street Journal spoke with historians who fear that the president's vendetta against so-called "diversity, equity and inclusion" initiatives may have a negative impact on the Smithsonian's ability to give a comprehensive look at U.S. history.
'The Smithsonian museums have never reflected one person's view, or even one administration's view,' Harvard history professor Tiya Miles told the outlet. 'They have reflected the composite research, analysis, discussion, findings of many different people, scholars and researchers.'
Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, agreed, telling WSJ, 'If those things are taken out of the hands of historians, the public stands to lose a great deal in having reliable and engaging content that tells a whole and complex story of the American past."
Following his March executive order, Trump's White House has already been accused of trying to rewrite history at the Smithsonian.
On July 31, The Washington Post reported on a recent change to an exhibit at the National Museum of American History titled "The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden." A section of the display is dedicated to U.S. presidents who have faced impeachment, and includes information about Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. (While Jackson and Clinton were successfully impeached, Nixon resigned the presidency before getting to that point.)
Since September 2021, the exhibit had featured a temporary label about Trump's historic two impeachments, along with a notice for visitors that read: 'Case under redesign (history happens).'
However, the Post reported that the label was removed in July "as part of a content review that the Smithsonian agreed to undertake following pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director."
Without no mention of Trump, the exhibit has now reverted back to suggesting that 'only three presidents have seriously faced removal,' despite that Trump has more experience with impeachment than any other president.
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
A Smithsonian spokesperson told the Post at the time that the Trump label was merely intended to be "a short-term addition to address current events."
'In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the 'Limits of Presidential Power' section in 'The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden' exhibition needed to be addressed,' the spokesperson said in a statement.
The section of this exhibition covers Congress, The Supreme Court, Impeachment, and Public Opinion. Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance.'
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone," Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms. Valerie Gonzalez, The Associated Press
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Proposed congressional maps in California could help Democrats flip 5 seats
Proposed new congressional maps in California that are expected to be put to voters in a special election this fall indicate the redrawn district lines could help Democrats flip five Republican seats and bolster around five Democratic incumbents in toss-up districts. The new maps, posted on the California State Assembly website on Friday evening, are draft proposals and are subject to be changed or reworked by the state legislature, which is set to start working next week. The legislative action follows California Gov. Gavin Newsom's call on Thursday for a special election on new maps, in an attempt to counter mid-decade redistricting being pushed by Republicans in Texas. MORE: California will move forward with redistricting vote to counter Texas, Newsom says The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the campaign arm of House Democrats, took credit Friday for submitting the maps to the California legislature, saying in a statement they believe they will have widespread support among California legislators and voters. "We anticipate this proposal will have widespread support both among California office holders and various stakeholders across the state," DCCC Executive Director Julie Merz said in a statement. "We will not stand by as Republicans attempt to rig the election in their favor and choose their voters. It's increasingly clear that Republicans will do anything to protect their narrow majority because they know they can't win on their disastrous legislative record which has raised costs and rips away health care for millions, all to give the ultra-wealthy a tax break." Paul Mitchell, a redistricting and data expert who drew the maps, told ABC News San Francisco station KGO-TV in an interview on Friday afternoon before the draft maps were posted online that eight of the proposed redrawn districts are unchanged; another 20 are changed very little, and that overall the goal was "pushing back on Texas without doing something that would radically disrupt the congressional district lines." MORE: Texas Democrats to return after governor ends special session that included redistricting, sources say Mitchell added that beyond making five Republican-held seats favor Democrats -- as a counter to the proposed congressional maps in Texas that could flip five seats to favor Republicans -- the proposal also strengthens the districts of around five Democratic "frontline candidates" who face more difficult challenges from Republicans. "[The legislature has] got some time next week to put it together, along with all the other language for a statewide ballot measure. And I think the point for voters is, this is a way to push back on what Texas Republicans are doing, on what Trump is doing," Mitchell told KGO-TV. Republicans continue to cry foul, saying that Newsom's gambit for new maps is politically motivated. NRCC chair Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) wrote in a statement before the proposed maps were posted: "Gavin Newsom failed to solve the homelessness, crime, drug, and cost epidemics plaguing the Golden State. Now he is shredding California's Constitution and disenfranchising voters to prop up his Presidential ambitions. "Californians oppose Newsom's stunt because they won't let a self-serving politician rig the system to further his career. The NRCC is prepared to fight this illegal power grab in the courts and at the ballot box to stop Newsom in his tracks."
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he and Putin made 'headway' but there is 'no deal until there's a deal'
US President Donald Trump said 'some great progress' was made during high-stakes talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the war in Ukraine, but neither leader offered specific details on the trajectory of the war. Mr Trump said 'many points were agreed to,' with just a 'very few' remaining, and he told reporters he will speak with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky soon. Mr Putin said the two leaders had reached an 'understanding,' but neither offered further details on Ukraine's future.
