On Independence Day, July 4th, the White House Domestic Policy Council publicly released a report, published late in the day, accusing the leadership of the Smithsonian Institution - particularly the National Museum of American History - of being radical activists. According to the Associated Press, the report states that current museum leadership "cannot be trusted" to tell America's story honestly, inspiringly, and in a way that unites. usnews.com confirmed that the report specifically targeted the leadership of the American history museum, calling them progressive activists.
Why now? The timing coincides with America preparing to celebrate 250 years since its founding, as the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History is opening a series of new exhibits for the occasion. According to the New York Times, the report describes the American history museum as downplaying the role of the founding fathers while overemphasizing social justice themes. In other words, this is not just a personnel matter but a dispute over who has the right to define the official story of the nation precisely at a symbolically significant commemorative milestone.
Who is affected? First, the Smithsonian leadership itself - Lonnie Bunch, the first African American to serve as Secretary of the Institution, and Anthea M. Hartig, the first woman to serve as Director of the National Museum of American History, according to the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, both are the first to hold these positions. More broadly, this affects tens of millions of visitors annually and researchers and teachers who rely on the Smithsonian as a source for public history.
Origins: from the March executive order to the Independence Day report
The story begins with Executive Order 14253, signed on March 27, 2025, titled "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History". This executive order accuses an organization previously funded by the administration of organizing training at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia calling for dismantling "Western foundations". The order also specifically names the "The Shape of Power" exhibition at the Smithsonian American Art Museum, accusing the National Museum of African American History and Culture of previously describing "industriousness", "individualism", and "nuclear family" as characteristics of "white culture", while criticizing the planned opening of the National Museum of Women's History. The order tasks the Vice President - as a member of the Smithsonian Board of Regents - with coordinating the removal of content deemed ideologically misguided, while also working with Congress to restrict Smithsonian's future budgets from funding programs deemed to promote racial division.
The July 4th report represents the next step, prepared by the Domestic Policy Council itself, an agency led by a former senior speechwriter for President Trump. The report specifically alleges that the American history museum has abandoned its educational role in favor of extreme political activism.
Is this unprecedented?
No. This marks the third time in less than two years that the Trump administration has intervened in a cultural or educational institution through budget or personnel leverage. Previously, President Trump made himself chairman of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and a board he appointed voted to put his name on the building - before a federal judge ordered the sign removed. The administration also previously threatened to cut hundreds of millions in federal funding to force Columbia University to change its policies, and just last week won a lawsuit allowing it to reinstall interpretive plaques at President George Washington's private residence in Philadelphia.
The key difference this time lies in scale: the Smithsonian is the world's largest museum and research center system, established by Congress with part of its budget coming from public funds. Pairing the critical report with threats to cut funding through Congress - as outlined in the March executive order - is a much more powerful pressure tool than a sign or a single university grant. Therefore, this is not an unusual APPROACH, but rather a significant ESCALATION in scale compared to previous incidents.
What happens next
Executive Order 14253 establishes a notable timeline: the U.S. Department of Interior was tasked with completing infrastructure renovations at Independence Park by July 4, 2026 - which would have been today according to the original schedule - while reviewing whether any monuments or memorials were removed or altered since 2020 for possible restoration. With the new report now released, the next steps will likely involve budget negotiations between the White House and Congress over Smithsonian funding in the next fiscal year, as well as the possibility of changing exhibit content at the museums mentioned by name. Those interested should monitor congressional budget hearings and official responses from the Smithsonian Board of Regents in the coming weeks.
Báo cáo này có đồng nghĩa với việc Smithsonian bị cắt ngân sách ngay lập tức không?
Chưa. Đây là một báo cáo chỉ trích, không phải quyết định ngân sách. Tuy nhiên nó gắn liền với một sắc lệnh hành pháp có sẵn từ tháng 3/2025, trong đó Phó Tổng thống được giao làm việc với Quốc hội để hạn chế các khoản chi cho những chương trình bị cho là gây chia rẽ, nên đây là bước chuẩn bị dư luận trước các cuộc thương lượng ngân sách sắp tới.
Có phải chính quyền đang cố xóa bỏ lịch sử về chủng tộc và bất công tại các bảo tàng Mỹ?
Đây là điểm hai bên nhìn nhận khác nhau, không phải sự thật đã được xác lập. Chính quyền lập luận rằng một số nội dung trưng bày và tập huấn đã đi quá xa, biến giáo dục lịch sử thành vận động chính trị một chiều. Giới phê bình và một số nhà sử học cho rằng việc gỡ bỏ hoặc thay thế những nội dung này là xóa nhòa các phần lịch sử khó nghe nhưng có thật. Cả hai lập luận đều xuất phát từ cùng một bộ sự kiện, khác nhau ở cách diễn giải.
Bảo Nguyễn
Bảo Nguyễn founded Saigon Sentinel to give the Vietnamese diaspora truly independent, in-depth community coverage at a time when misinformation moves faster than fact-checks and the language barrier makes verification harder than it should be. He sets the editorial standards and quality controls that govern the reporting, chooses the subjects, writes and edits each article, reads it against its sources before publication, audits published output, and handles corrections.