Why the White House is targeting Smithsonian exhibits on slavery, sexuality and immigration

Why the White House is targeting Smithsonian exhibits on slavery, sexuality and immigration

The White House on Thursday released a list of Smithsonian exhibits and programs it considers inappropriate, intensifying a months-long campaign to reshape how the institution presents US history and culture. The list singled out materials that touched on sexuality, immigration and slavery, echoing criticisms from conservative media. It follows a directive requiring eight Smithsonian museums to submit exhibition texts for federal review within 120 days, the New York Times reported.

Borrowing from conservative critiques

Much of the White House list drew from an article in The Federalist, which objected to displays such as a pride flag at the National Museum of American History, programs discussing Benjamin Franklin’s links to slavery, and a portrayal of migrants watching fireworks through a gap in the US-Mexico border wall. The administration also faulted the National Museum of African American History and Culture for previously posting a worksheet that described “whiteness” in terms of values like individualism and the nuclear family, material that had already been removed after public controversy.

Expanding the grievances

The list went beyond previously aired complaints, criticizing a stop-motion animation at the National Portrait Gallery that depicted Dr. Anthony Fauci during the Covid-19 pandemic, and a lecture series that featured anti-racism scholar Ibram X. Kendi. Other items flagged included displays at the National Museum of African Art and the American Art Museum. The document was published online under the title, “President Trump Is Right About the Smithsonian.”

Pressure from the top

President Trump has accused the Smithsonian of being “out of control” and too focused on “how bad slavery was.” He has directed Vice President JD Vance, a Smithsonian board member, to work with Congress on restricting funding for exhibitions that the White House sees as divisive. Lindsey Halligan, a presidential aide, has taken credit for spearheading the overhaul. The administration is pushing museums to replace what it calls “ideologically driven language” with “unifying” descriptions.

The Smithsonian’s independence at risk

Traditionally, the Smithsonian Institution has operated independently despite receiving about 62 percent of its billion-dollar budget from Congress and federal sources. Historians warn that the White House campaign marks a significant departure from that arm’s-length relationship. Samuel J. Redman, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, described the new list as “unprecedented pressure” and “cherry-picking” from an otherwise diverse museum network.

Leadership changes and resignations

The pressure has already reshaped Washington’s cultural landscape. Trump purged the Kennedy Center’s board of Biden-era appointees and installed himself as chairman. At the Smithsonian, Kim Sajet, director of the National Portrait Gallery, resigned in June after Trump claimed to have fired her, calling her partisan and aligned with diversity initiatives. The White House has made clear it sees leadership changes as part of the broader cultural overhaul.

Political symbolism and cultural control

The Smithsonian battle highlights Trump’s broader effort to reframe American history and identity around what he calls “shared values.” His administration argues that exhibits focusing on racial injustice or immigration undermine national unity. Critics counter that the intervention resembles state-directed culture management more common in authoritarian systems. The controversy also reflects deeper national divides over how history, race, and identity should be taught and remembered.

By publishing a list of “objectionable” exhibits, the White House has escalated its campaign to assert political control over the Smithsonian’s programming. While officials say they aim to promote unity and historical accuracy, critics see an effort to rewrite history by downplaying subjects such as slavery, immigration, and sexuality. Whether the Smithsonian resists or adapts will determine not just the future of its galleries but also how Americans understand their past in an era of sharply contested narratives.