On March 27, the White House released a statement entailing President Donald Trump’s most recent executive order. This order, titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” critiques and attacks the Smithsonian Institution and the profession of art history.
As an art history major and avid museum visitor, this order became of my utmost concern. Let’s talk about what it means for the art history profession and the institutions of museums within the United States.
What Does the Executive Order Do?
The directive targets the Smithsonian Institution, aiming to eliminate what the administration deems “improper,” “divisive,” and of “anti-American ideology” from its exhibits and educational programs. This decision has sparked concern about its long-term impact on art history, museum curation, and historical narratives within the U.S.
The order calls for a reevaluation of federal funding for Smithsonian programs, particularly those at the National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC) and the forthcoming American Women’s History Museum. Vice President JD Vance has been tasked with overseeing the implementation of these changes, and the administration argues that historical institutions have become increasingly politicized.
President Trump stated that there’s been a “concerted effort” to distort history with ideology and that “objective facts” are being replaced.
The Impact on Art History
Trump’s executive order presents a profound challenge for art historians and museum professionals. Museums serve as cultural stewards, preserving civilizations’ visual and material histories.
The NMAAHC and American Women’s History Museum are stages for untold stories of the people of the U.S. They serve as reminders of our past as a nation and celebrate the culture of American art. When political forces intervene in curatorial decisions, the integrity of these institutions is at risk.
The order sets a dangerous precedent. Museums should be a place of discourse, not ideological purity tests. Many works are already under scrutiny for their content and purposes. Jacob Lawrence’s paintings and Kara Walker’s silhouette installations, for instance, aren’t just politically relevant but also vital to understanding American art.
Erasing Narratives: A Cultural Setback?
One of the most significant concerns is the potential removal or alteration of exhibits highlighting marginalized voices.
The NMAAHC, for example, showcases historical artifacts that document the realities of racial segregation, civil rights, and much more. If these exhibits are modified to align with the administration’s vision of history, entire aspects of the American experience may be lost.
Museums aren’t places of radical ideologies, they’re safehouses for history and art, two things that are interwoven into the culture of the United States. It’s vital to keep the memory of our nation alive, and history is meant to be a learning tool for future generations. Museums foster this ability to learn and grow; without them, we’ll remain stagnant as a nation.
Similarly, the American Women’s History Museum is expected to feature works by artists such as Faith Ringgold, but now faces uncertainty. The executive order may influence which stories are told, potentially diminishing the contributions of women and artists of color to the national narrative.
A New Era of Censorship?
Artists, scholars, and curators have expressed concern that this move represents a broader trend of political intervention in the arts. The closure of the Smithsonian’s Office of Diversity and a hiring freeze have already begun reshaping the institution’s internal structure. This freeze isn’t secular to just the Smithsonian — several federal offices have been cut and defunded, costing hundreds of thousands of Americans their jobs and livelihoods.
Roberto Lugo, a contemporary potter whose work addresses race and identity, was interviewed by The Guardian. He questioned whether his works would remain displayed for their proper purpose under Trump’s new policies.
What Comes Next?
The Smithsonian Institution has yet to release a comprehensive response to the executive order, and how strictly it’ll be enforced remains to be seen. Some legal experts argue that because the institution is quasi-governmental, there may be limitations on the extent to which the administration can dictate its programming. However, the threat of funding cuts could push museum leadership to comply.
For now, activists and scholars are urging the public to support cultural institutions and demand transparency in decision-making. As art history faces an uncertain future under this directive, one thing is clear: the fight over historical narratives and creative representation is far from over.
The executive order’s full impact on art history and museum curators remains to be seen, but its controversy underscores the importance of protecting artistic and historical integrity. The question now is whether the Smithsonian — and the broader art world — can withstand this political pressure and continue to present history in all its complexity.
Want to see more HCFSU? Be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and Pinterest!