The Smithsonian Institution has long been a cultural anchor for Washington, D.C., drawing roughly 15 million visitors each year across its 21 museums. Yet a recent salvo from the Trump administration has thrust the agency into the heart of a national culture-war. In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order proclaiming that the Smithsonian had succumbed to “divisive, race-centered ideology.” The order instructed the Department of the Interior to install signs warning patrons that the museum’s displays were the product of “ideological capture.” A subsequent letter from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in late August warned the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents that other federal agencies could no longer, in good conscience, support the institution under its current leadership.
White House report, executive orders, and the pushback
The July 2024 White House report that sparked the controversy described the museum’s recent exhibitions as a departure from “straightforward historical education” toward “extreme political activism.” Republican members of two House committees pressed Smithsonian director Anthea Hartig on items such as a chrome-and-rubber “crotch harness” allegedly used for sadomasochistic sex. While the report’s language was fierce, it also contained a direct quotation: “The Smithsonian had succumbed to ‘divisive, race-centered ideology.’” Following the report, Trump issued an executive order timed for July 4, the nation’s 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, directing the Interior to place warning signs outside the National Museum of American History. As of now, the signs have not been installed, but the move signals an unprecedented attempt by a president to brand a federal cultural institution as “woke.”Ideological capture—as defined in the report—refers to the perceived domination of scholarly content by a particular political lens.
Exhibits that ignited the controversy
Two displays became focal points for criticism. The first, opened in November 2021, was titled “The Electric Dr. Franklin.” The exhibit highlighted Benjamin Franklin’s pioneering work in electricity while acknowledging that his scientific achievements were, in part, enabled by slavery. It declared, “Benjamin Franklin’s remarkable scientific accomplishments were, in part, enabled by slavery” and speculated that enslaved individuals may have been used in his electrical experiments. The exhibit’s text noted: “Indentured servants and enslaved people in his household could also have been used, although we may never know for certain.” The second exhibit showcased a chrome and rubber “crotch harness” designed for sadomasochistic sexual activity, a piece some lawmakers deemed gratuitous. Both items were singled out in the White House’s 162-page report as evidence of an “extreme political activism” agenda.
Long-standing internal debates about the museum’s mission
The current showdown is the latest chapter in a decades-long struggle over how the National Museum of American History should portray the United States. Critics as early as 1999 argued that the museum’s focus on oppression eclipsed traditional narratives of key figures and events. A 2002 blue-ribbon commission, chaired by former Republican aide Richard Darman, warned that the museum lacked “aesthetic appeal, organizational coherence, and the perception of substantive balance.” Subsequent directors tried various strategies—splitting the national story into thematic galleries such as “American Enterprise,” “American Democracy,” and “The Price of Freedom.” Yet each re-configuration invited new disputes, from donor irritation over slavery references in the business gallery to veteran concerns about military exhibit tone. The museum’s physical architecture, described by architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable as an “awkward attempt to marry the classical and the modern,” has also contributed to a sense of incoherence.
Amid the turbulence, Smithsonian secretary Lonnie Bunch, the institution’s first African-American leader, announced his resignation on September 8, 2025, stating, “it has been stressful.” Bunch’s departure underscores how fiscal pressure—over 62 % of the Smithsonian’s budget, more than $1 billion annually, comes from federal appropriations—has intensified under the current political climate. With the Board of Regents now facing a letter from Interior Secretary Burgum threatening to curtail inter-agency support, the museum’s future governance and funding structures are under renewed scrutiny.
Implications for America’s historical narrative
Whether the Smithsonian’s displays are “woke” or simply reflecting a more inclusive historiography, the episode highlights a broader national debate: how should the United States tell its own story? The clash pits a President’s desire to reassert a singular, triumphalist narrative against museum professionals who argue that a comprehensive account must confront uncomfortable truths—such as slavery’s role in scientific progress or the complex sexual histories of modern artifacts. As the White House and Congress continue to probe the museum’s curatorial choices, the outcome will likely shape not only the Smithsonian’s internal policies but also the tenor of public history across the country.
