President says Smithsonian is “out of control” for focusing on slavery, launches attorney review of museum content
President Donald Trump escalated his attacks on the Smithsonian Institution this week, threatening to unleash attorneys on the museum system for what he called excessive focus on slavery and America’s historical failings. The unprecedented presidential assault on the nation’s premier cultural institution has alarmed historians and civil rights advocates who see it as an attempt to sanitize American history.
In a Tuesday Truth Social post, Trump declared the Smithsonian “OUT OF CONTROL” and criticized museums as “essentially, the last remaining segment of ‘WOKE.’” He specifically attacked the institution’s coverage of slavery, writing that everything discussed focuses on “how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.”
Trump announced he had “instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made.” The reference points to his administration’s pressure campaign against universities, some of which have reached settlements over withheld federal funds.
The White House confirmed the aggressive stance, with an official telling The Washington Post that “President Trump will explore all options and avenues to get the Woke out of the Smithsonian and hold them accountable.”
The attack particularly threatens the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which extensively documents the slave trade, plantation system, and ongoing struggles for civil rights. Trump’s criticism that museums focus too much on “how bad Slavery was” represents a stark reversal from his 2017 visit to the African American museum, when he praised it as offering a “meaningful reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance and hatred.”
Many Black Americans find Trump’s language deeply troubling, noting they could never imagine a president suggesting the Holocaust receives too much attention in museums or claiming Nazi persecution “wasn’t that bad.” The differential treatment of historical atrocities based on which communities suffered them highlights ongoing tensions over how America confronts its past.
“Evidence-based exhibits on slavery, civil rights and other aspects of our country’s history are explorations of a shared past that the administration is labeling as ‘woke’ to stifle any public discussion,” said Beth English, executive director of the Organization of American Historians. “What we’re really seeing is executive overreach masquerading as patriotic renewal.”
The Smithsonian threats represent the latest escalation in Trump’s war against cultural institutions. The administration has already applied financial pressure through cuts to the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, disrupting planning and programs at institutions focused on Black history and culture.
The White House previously announced an aggressive review of eight Smithsonian museums, led by senior associate Lindsey Halligan and Vice President JD Vance, who serves on the institution’s board. The review aims to identify and eliminate what officials call “improper ideology” within the museum system.
This pressure campaign has already claimed casualties. National Portrait Gallery director Kim Sajet resigned following a leadership standoff with the White House, and artist Amy Sherald canceled a major Smithsonian exhibition over concerns about censorship.
Museum experts and historians strongly reject Trump’s characterization of the Smithsonian as backward-looking or unpatriotic. Samuel Redman, director of public history at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, called Trump’s post “factually incorrect,” noting exhibitions like “Futures” at the Arts and Industries Building and extensive celebrations of American innovation at the National Museum of American History.
“The Smithsonian’s collections and 21 museums include a vast range of information about the country, including scientific discoveries, social movements and economic achievements,” historians noted. The institution tells America’s complete story, not just comfortable narratives about national greatness.
Suse Anderson of George Washington University’s museum studies program warned that political interference carries “perilous ramifications for our shared understanding of the past and our shared imagining of the future.”
Trump’s legal authority to force content changes remains unclear. The Smithsonian operates under congressional oversight rather than direct executive control, receiving about 62% of its funding from legislative appropriations and the remainder from private donations and endowments.
“They’re completely different beasts” from universities, noted museum historian Marjorie Schwarzer, explaining that museums “don’t turn on a dime, especially the Smithsonian.” The institution’s governance structure may provide some protection against executive interference.
However, the administration retains significant leverage through federal funding streams and appointment powers. The threats alone may create a “chilling effect” similar to the pressure campaign against universities, potentially encouraging self-censorship among museum professionals.
The American Alliance of Museums condemned political interference, stating that “Museums’ role is to tell the full story of America — our triumphs and our struggles. When we confront difficult chapters of history alongside our greatest achievements, we gain a deeper understanding of who we are as a nation.”
Critics argue Trump’s campaign represents an attempt to impose a whitewashed version of American history that ignores or minimizes the experiences of enslaved people and their descendants. The focus on removing slavery exhibits while preserving celebrations of American achievement suggests a selective approach to historical truth.
The Smithsonian controversy extends beyond museum walls to fundamental questions about historical memory and national identity. Trump’s insistence that slavery receives too much attention while demanding more focus on American “Success” and “Brightness” reflects competing visions of how the nation should understand its past.
For many observers, the differential treatment of various historical tragedies — with slavery deemed over-emphasized while other atrocities receive no such criticism — reveals troubling patterns in how different communities’ suffering is valued and remembered.
The outcome of this confrontation may determine whether America’s premier cultural institution can continue presenting comprehensive historical narratives or will be forced to adopt sanitized versions that prioritize comfort over truth. As historians and civil rights advocates mobilize resistance, the battle over the Smithsonian represents a critical test of institutional independence in the face of authoritarian pressure.