White House escalates pressure on Smithsonian over exhibitions on race, slavery, transgender identity and immigration
The White House stepped up its critique of the Smithsonian on Thursday, calling out a string of exhibitions and materials that address race, slavery, transgender identity and immigration as it renewed President Donald Trump’s claim that the institution concentrates too heavily on divisive aspects of American history.
In an unsigned article published on a White House site titled “President Trump Is Right About the Smithsonian,” the administration named seven Smithsonian museums for their exhibits and messaging. The list includes the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of American History, the National Portrait Gallery and the National Museum of the American Latino. The piece also notes two museums that have not yet broken ground on their buildings—the National Museum of the American Latino and the American Women’s History Museum—and references works by individual artists.
Representatives for the named museums did not respond to requests for comment, or referred inquiries to the Smithsonian’s central administration, whose spokesperson declined to comment.
“The Trump Administration is committed to rooting out woke and divisive ideology in our government and institutions,” said White House spokesperson Davis Ingle in an email. “Taxpayer money should not be used for things that pit Americans against one another. Our Smithsonian should exhibit history in an accurate, honest, and factual way.”
Among the targets highlighted were two planned museums that have not yet opened—and works by artists such as Hugo Crosthwaite, who created a portrait of former National Institutes of Health official Anthony S. Fauci that the White House said is part of the Smithsonian’s exhibition efforts. Crosthwaite told The Post he was honored to be included and described the portrait as commemorating a figure who “has made a significant impact on the wellness of this country.”
Another artist, Rigoberto A. González, learned of his work’s inclusion via a friend and compared the scrutiny to historical efforts to police art. González submitted a painting of a family crossing a U.S. border wall for the Smithsonian’s Outwin Boochever portrait competition; the White House page states that the Portrait Gallery “features” his painting, but he notes it is not on display and remains in a private collection. He emphasized that his work aims to reflect the real immigration experience, not promote a political stance.
The White House list comes two days after Trump said he would deploy attorneys through the museums and contended that the Smithsonian focuses too much on “how bad Slavery was.”
In remarks to Fox News, Lindsey Halligan, the White House official reviewing the Smithsonian, said she personally toured museums and studied slavery-related materials. “The fact that our country was involved in slavery is awful—no one thinks otherwise,” Halligan said. “But what I saw when I was going through the museums, personally, was an overemphasis on slavery, and I think there should be more of an overemphasis on how far we’ve come since slavery.”
Scholars challenged Trump’s framing of the Smithsonian’s work. Samuel Redman, director of the public history program at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told The Post that Trump does not have authority to change the institution unilaterally and that the Smithsonian already features forward-looking exhibits on American innovation. Beth English, executive director of the Organization of American Historians, described Trump’s stance as “executive overreach masquerading as patriotic renewal.”
The White House also reiterated its focus on “The Shape of Power,” a Smithsonian American Art Museum exhibition that explores how sculpture has interacted with race in the United States and, at times, been used to promote scientific racism. The administration has previously cited the show in its efforts to portray the museum as biased against certain narratives.
As part of its broader effort to influence Smithsonian leadership, the White House highlighted 17 examples from the Portrait Gallery’s programming that it says demonstrate partisan behavior, including the commission of Dana Tai Soon Burgess’s choreographic work El Muro (The Wall). Burgess did not respond to requests for comment.
The White House announced a more aggressive review of Smithsonian materials last week, while the institution said it is conducting its own internal review.
Additionally, the White House drew attention to a temporary ground-floor exhibition at the American History Museum on the history of Title IX and women in sports, objecting to references to transgender athletes.
Reaction to the White House’s push has been mixed. Some scholars defend the Smithsonian’s approach as integral to a comprehensive understanding of American history, while others warn that political interference risks politicizing curatorial choices and distorting public memory.
What it means going forward remains uncertain. The Smithsonian’s internal review and ongoing dialogue with lawmakers and the public may shape how exhibits address sensitive topics in a way that informs, rather than simply politics, the public’s understanding of American history.
Summary
– The White House publicly criticized several Smithsonian exhibitions addressing race, slavery, transgender identity and immigration, arguing they overemphasize negative aspects of U.S. history.
– The administration singled out seven museums, including major national institutions, and called for a more “accurate, honest, and factual” presentation of history.
– Critics—from scholars to museum professionals—argue the move risks politicizing history and undermining the Smithsonian’s mission to present a broad, nuanced view of the past.
– The Smithsonian is conducting its own internal review in response, with both sides signaling ongoing engagement over how history is presented to the public.
Additional context and value
– This episode highlights a broader, ongoing debate about how museums balance difficult truths with national narratives.
– For readers, it underscores how funding, governance, and political pressures can impact curation and public education in national museums.
– A constructive takeaway is the importance of transparent, evidence-based programming and robust public dialogue to preserve museum independence while addressing legitimate concerns about how history is presented.
If you’d like, I can tailor this into a shorter briefing for a quick-read post or craft a longer, source-based explainer that situates this dispute within recent Smithsonian policy debates and funding considerations.