The Daily – "The Push to Revise American History at the Smithsonian"

Date: September 3, 2025
Hosted by: Rachel Abrams
Featured Guest: Robyn Pokerman (Reporter covering U.S. arts and culture)

Overview

This episode explores the intensifying campaign by the Trump administration to reshape how American history is presented at the Smithsonian Institution, one of the country's preeminent cultural landmarks. With mounting pressure from the White House to revise and sanitize historical narratives in museums—particularly around topics like slavery, race, and identity—the episode examines the broader struggle over who gets to define the American story and how institutions are weathering political interference.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Escalation at the Smithsonian

• The Trump administration has begun overt efforts to influence the content and direction of the Smithsonian museums, framing its exhibits as overly negative or "woke."
• The Smithsonian, despite being federally funded, has a long-standing history of curatorial independence.

“To go after an institution as big and prestigious and as critical to American culture as the Smithsonian is just a really dramatic escalation.”
— Robyn Pokerman (02:13)

[02:44]

• The Smithsonian is described as "America’s attic," with both iconic patriotic artifacts and exhibits on civil rights and injustice.
• It receives 62% of its budget from the government, yet has operated independently, with curators making artistic decisions.

2. Pattern of Government Interference

• The campaign began with President Trump targeting the Kennedy Center, replacing leadership with loyalists after accusing it of hosting “anti-American propaganda.”
• This success emboldened the administration to set its sights on the Smithsonian, a symbolically potent move.

[05:49]

• In March, Trump issued an executive order criticizing the Smithsonian for promoting a “divisive, race-centered ideology” and called for a more celebratory depiction of American greatness.

3. Leadership Pressure and Resignations

• The administration pushed for the firing of National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sayet after labeling her a strong supporter of DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion), despite her efforts to diversify the gallery’s narrative.

“Sayet made no secret of her interest in reimagining the museum...and it was actually that very phrase—the wealthy, the pale, and the male—that the Trump administration picked up on.”
— Robyn Pokerman (06:47)

[08:38]

• After initial resistance, Sayet resigned under political pressure, reflecting the Smithsonian Board’s challenge in balancing independence with appeasing the administration.

4. Curatorial Self-Censorship

• Artist Amy Sherald canceled her National Portrait Gallery exhibition after the board considered removing her painting of a transgender Statue of Liberty, pre-emptively trying to avoid another clash with the administration.

“It was the Smithsonian deciding to censor itself, even in advance of any complaints from the Trump administration.”
— Robyn Pokerman (12:02)

[12:17]

• The White House celebrated this outcome, framing it as a victory against what they called “divisive and ideological” reinterpretations of American symbols.

5. Increasing Demands from the Administration

• The White House announced a sweeping audit of Smithsonian exhibitions, demanding the removal or rewriting of content deemed “divisive” and providing a 120-day deadline for compliance.

[13:02]

“In that time, the Smithsonian had to replace any language that the White House deemed divisive or driven by ideology with description that the administration found acceptable.”
— Robyn Pokerman

6. Specific Objections Raised

[16:18]

• Examples cited by the administration included:
  • Exhibitions about crossing the U.S. southern border
  • Installations of the pride flag
  • Art related to Anthony Fauci
  • Slavery’s place in narratives about historic figures, such as Benjamin Franklin

“A lot of what the Trump administration is essentially reacting to is a kind of wholesale racial reckoning...since 2020.”
— Robyn Pokerman (17:51)

7. The Challenges of Historical Interpretation

• The episode recounts previous controversies, such as the 1990s Enola Gay exhibit, illustrating that debates over how history is told at museums are longstanding, though direct presidential intervention is unprecedented.

“There is a long history of debating how history gets told. But this is an unusual instance of the presidential administration imposing its will on how that story gets told.”
— Robyn Pokerman (19:24)

8. Smithsonian’s Dilemma & Board Dynamics

[20:57]

• The decision on how to respond to administration demands rests with the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents, which includes both Democrats and Republicans, members of Congress, the Vice President, and is presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts.
• The board has not yet issued an official response. There’s concern about potential long-term loss of independence, especially with upcoming board turnover potentially giving Trump more influence.

9. Implications and Fears for Artistic Independence

• Fears are circulated about a chilling effect on scholarly and creative work nationwide if the Smithsonian and similar institutions self-censor or succumb to political mandates.
• Comparisons are made to historic patterns of authoritarian control over culture abroad.

“I had lunch today with a European museum director who said that he saw this as a frightening pattern...where propaganda infects almost everything.”
— Robyn Pokerman (23:35)

10. A Simplified Story of America?

[25:14]

• If the administration prevails, institutions like the Smithsonian could become vessels for a sanitized narrative, emphasizing triumph and omitting uncomfortable truths.

“[Trump] would have remade these institutions in his own image...It will also be a simplified version of America, a story with less nuance and complexity.”
— Robyn Pokerman (25:29)

• The moment coincides with planning for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, raising the stakes for how America’s story is told at a symbolic moment.

“Are we just sort of applauding progress as triumphant, or are we looking...at progress in all its complexity as being both successes and failures?”
— Robyn Pokerman (26:45)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Smithsonian’s independence:
  “This is an independent institution...artistic decisions are made by museum directors and curators and not by the board and not by the government.” — Robyn Pokerman (03:41)
• On self-censorship:
  “...troubling about this was this was the Smithsonian deciding to censor itself, even in advance of any complaints from the Trump administration.” — Robyn Pokerman (12:02)
• On how history is written:
  “This is really reminding me of this old adage about how history gets written by the victors...Trump is the one in charge, and he’s trying to, as you said, impose his version of history...” — Rachel Abrams (22:55)
• On the stakes for cultural institutions:
  “A lot of museum leaders feel this is a moment to take a firm stand in favor of open debate and critical thinking and freedom of expression, which are foundational values of American cultural institutions.” — Robyn Pokerman (24:15)

Important Timestamps

• 02:13–03:41: Why the Smithsonian is a unique cultural target
• 04:35–05:49: Origins of the current wave of government intervention
• 06:47–08:38: Kim Sayet’s resignation and board dynamics
• 10:12–11:55: Amy Sherald exhibition and internal self-censorship
• 13:02–14:11: Trump administration’s formal demands and audit
• 16:18–17:51: Specific exhibits and the politics of historical representation
• 19:24–20:39: Historical context and the precedent of political controversy
• 20:57–22:55: The Board of Regents’ role and the risk of government takeover
• 23:35–24:15: Worries about chilling effects and international comparisons
• 25:14–26:45: What’s at stake: national identity and future anniversaries

Episode Conclusion

The episode concludes with an open question about the future of American cultural storytelling—will the Smithsonian and similar institutions resist pressure and defend the complexity of history, or will they succumb to political intervention and present a “safer,” less truthful narrative? As the nation approaches a milestone anniversary, the way its story is told hangs in the balance.