What are some notable examples of presidential involvement in Smithsonian exhibitions?
Executive summary
Presidential involvement in Smithsonian exhibitions is not new: past presidents have publicly criticized or tried to influence displays, and the Trump administration’s 2025 actions—an executive order and a White House-directed review of multiple museums—represent an unusually direct, wide-ranging intervention that targeted content, funding, and governance [1] [2]. Reporting and commentary document reviews, lists of objectionable exhibits, and citizen efforts to track changes after the White House demanded “content corrections” and alignment with a presidential vision of American exceptionalism [3] [4] [5].
1. A recent, broad intervention: the 2025 executive order and review
In March 2025 President Trump signed “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which directed the executive branch to press for Smithsonian changes—calling for reviews of exhibits, restrictions on future appropriations that “prohibit expenditure on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values,” and steps to remove what the order labeled “improper ideology” from Smithsonian properties [1]. That order was followed by an August 2025 White House letter initiating a “comprehensive internal review” of selected museums, asking for materials from curators, grant agreements, and visitor-evaluation tools, and framing the review as enforcing a presidential directive to celebrate American exceptionalism and remove “divisive or partisan narratives” [2] [6].
2. Targets, scope, and tactics the White House publicly named
The White House said the review would initially focus on eight museums—including the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, and the National Portrait Gallery—and specified public-facing content: exhibition text, websites, educational materials, and social media [3] [2]. The administration also publicized an itemized list of exhibits and artworks it found objectionable in a White House “article,” signaling a strategy of public naming-and-shaming alongside the formal review [7] [4].
3. Institutional levers: board seats, funding and personnel
The White House and the administration leaned on formal levers of influence: an assertion that the vice president, who sits on the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents, would work with Congress to limit appropriations and enforce the order’s aims; and public challenges to museum leadership, including attempts to remove or criticize directors and to press for management changes [1] [4]. Reporting notes that about 62 percent of the Smithsonian’s annual budget is federally funded, which is the practical leverage for political influence, and commentators stress that exhibition content is typically determined by curators and museum staff [8].
4. Historical parallels and contrasts
Scholarly and legal histories show earlier presidential complaints about Smithsonian displays, and one oft-cited precedent is the Nixon-era insistence on a politicized exhibit in 1971 that was later criticized as a cautionary tale of political meddling in curatorial independence [9]. Contemporary analysts draw contrasts: while presidents have criticized museums before, the 2025 actions are wider in scope—moving from criticism to a formal executive order and focused White House review of multiple museums’ texts, programs, and funding [9] [3].
5. Public responses and grassroots monitoring
Journalists and civic groups quickly mobilized responses: the Smithsonian publicly defended scholarly independence and accuracy, and citizen-historian projects sprang up to document exhibit content and track changes over time—explicitly to create records of how exhibits appeared before and after the White House review [6] [5]. News outlets and cultural critics have reported protests, commentary pieces, and detailed lists of targeted exhibitions, indicating broad public attention and contested narratives about what constitutes “divisive” content [10] [11].
6. Disagreement in sources over motives and effects
The White House framed the initiative as restorative—aimed at celebrating American exceptionalism and removing partisan narratives [2] [3]. Critics and many reporting outlets portray the moves as politicization of the cultural sphere and an attempt to censor or reshape scholarship-driven exhibitions; some outlets documented administrative efforts to remove directors or adjust boards, and others catalogued specific exhibits singled out by the administration [4] [11] [8]. Both perspectives appear across the reporting: the administration emphasizes national unity and accuracy, while critics emphasize institutional independence and academic standards [1] [4].
7. What the sources do not say
Available sources do not mention final judicial rulings, long-term outcomes for specific exhibitions beyond initial reporting, or internal Smithsonian staff deliberations resolving each contested item—many stories report actions taken, lists published, and citizen documentation efforts but do not yet document comprehensive, final changes to every object or gallery named [2] [5] [4].
Conclusion: The 2025 episode is a vivid, well-documented example of modern presidential involvement in Smithsonian exhibitions—combining executive orders, budgetary threats, board-level influence, public lists of objectionable content, and heightened civic monitoring—while debate continues over whether the moves correct perceived bias or undermine curatorial independence [1] [2] [5].