Who Tells America’s History?

On Aug. 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Interior sent a letter to the Smithsonian Board of Regents, accusing the Institution of participating in “ideological activism” and threatening to cut federal support of its museums. This letter follows longstanding tensions between the Trump administration and the Smithsonian Institution over how exhibits portray American history. At the center of this conflict is a broader question of how history should be interpreted and how much influence the federal government has over how it is presented.

The Smithsonian Institution was established by Congress in 1846 and is a trust instrumentality of the United States, additionally appointing the Board of Regents to have full governing authority. In the letter, the Trump administration stated that the Smithsonian is supposed to be a “steward of American history and culture” and to “preserve and present the American story faithfully and accurately, in a manner worthy of public trust.” The letter referenced taxpayer funding totaling over $1 billion yearly that Congress provides to support the Institution’s mission. 

One of the museums at the center of this dispute is the National Museum of American History (NMAH), whose mission is “exploring, preserving, and sharing the complexity of our past.”

In its letter, the Trump administration cited the museum’s leadership changes, mission statement revisions, changes in strategic priorities, public statements from officials, the Interpretive Plan, and more as reasons for NMAH to be advancing towards an ideological agenda, transforming the Smithsonian and the country. The administration claims the museum portrays radical ideology through educational materials and public programming, an example being language that, according to the letter, has sought to “legitimize illegal immigration and open borders.” Due to this, the administration threatens to cease funding, an attempt to rid the last segment of what Trump has described on social media as “woke” ideology. 

Although there has been no formal public statement from the Smithsonian Institution responding to the letter, there have been changes in the Smithsonian’s executive leadership since the letter was published. Lonnie G. Bunch III, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, announced his retirement on Sept. 8 following 38 years of work there. Despite the timing, Bunch confirmed that his decision was due to pressure from the Trump administration. Congressional allies, such as Sen. Jeff Merkley, have defended the Smithsonian Institution, fighting to protect its independence so that the Institution can tell all of America’s story. Additionally, the administration is preparing a dozen signs to be placed outside the Smithsonian museum sites temporarily to warn visitors about inaccuracies and focusing on too much injustice in the country’s history. 

If the Trump administration follows through with its threat to cease funding to the Smithsonian, the institution could face challenges. It receives 62% of funding from the federal government, therefore having to rely on non-federal funding sources such as donations, endowments and e-commerce. This amount would be a severe drop in funding to what the Institution operates with. The extent to which programs and exhibits are curated within the museums could potentially be limited. Beyond the impact that this could have financially, it also raises questions of the independence that the Smithsonian should have to increase knowledge throughout its museums. 

While there are no confirmed plans to cease federal funding to the Smithsonian Institution, the question of political and government influence in the museum's programming remains. The Trump administration argues that the Smithsonian is portraying ideological bias by highlighting negative aspects of the country’s past. However, critics argue that the administration’s actions are a dangerous precedent where the country’s complexities are not portrayed, leading to a potential erasure of important historical events. As tensions continue between the Trump administration and the Smithsonian Institution, the outcome could show how history is or should be portrayed, as well as who has authority over the information that the public receives about the complex history of the country.