Trump Administration Targets Smithsonian with ‘Objectionable Art’ List, Sparking Culture War Over American History

White House Escalates Culture War, Cites Smithsonian Art and Scholarship as ‘Objectionable’

Washington D.C. — The Trump administration has intensified its campaign against what it deems “woke” ideology within American cultural institutions, publishing a White House-sanctioned list of purportedly “objectionable art” and educational programs at the Smithsonian Institution. The move, articulated in an unsigned article titled “President Trump Is Right About the Smithsonian” on the official White House website, has ignited a fierce debate over artistic freedom, academic integrity, and the government’s role in shaping historical narratives. [3, 5, 6, 15]

The comprehensive list scrutinizes more than twenty exhibits and initiatives across various Smithsonian museums, including the National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC), the National Portrait Gallery, and the National Museum of American History. [3, 5, 20] The administration’s critique broadly targets content focusing on themes of race, gender, sexuality, and immigration, asserting that these portray U.S. history through a lens of systemic oppression and colonialism rather than celebrating “American exceptionalism” and “traditional values.” [5, 6, 7, 15]

The White House’s Stance and Broader Agenda

The publication of the “objectionable art” list follows an earlier executive order in March, signed by President Trump, which granted Vice President JD Vance authority to ensure Smithsonian programs reflect what the administration termed “traditional values.” [3, 6] This initiative is part of a broader, aggressive review preceding the nation’s 250th anniversary, aiming to align federal cultural institutions with the administration’s specific vision of American history. [5] White House spokesperson Davis Ingle emphasized the administration’s commitment to “rooting out Woke and divisive ideology,” stating that “taxpayer money should not be used for things that pit Americans against one another.” [6, 15]

The administration’s concerns extend beyond the Smithsonian, forming part of a wider “culture war” that has seen similar pressure on universities and efforts to curtail funding for arts and humanities programs. [8, 9, 11, 14, 18, 23, 25] The message is clear: federal funding for cultural institutions could be contingent on adhering to a narrative approved by the White House. [18]

Targeted Content and the Case of Ibram X. Kendi

Central to the White House’s critique is the National Museum of African American History and Culture’s online educational series. This series drew particular ire for featuring historian Ibram X. Kendi and his best-selling book, How to Be an Antiracist. [1, 20] The White House article specifically highlighted the NMAAHC series for defining “white dominant culture” in ways that suggest “the nuclear family,” “work ethic,” and “intellect” are “white qualities rooted in racism.” [2, 5, 20]

Ibram X. Kendi, a prominent voice in the national conversation on racial justice, posits a binary view where an idea, action, or policy is either racist—contributing to racial inequality—or antiracist—actively dismantling that inequality. [1, 17, 22] He argues that racism is not born of ignorance or hatred alone, but is often rooted in its profitability and utility, intertwined with systems like patriarchy and capitalism. [17] Kendi’s framework calls for persistent self-awareness and self-criticism in the pursuit of antiracism. [22] His work has become a frequent target for conservative critics who oppose Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies and the teaching of Critical Race Theory. [25]

Other exhibits deemed objectionable included a National Portrait Gallery dance performance exploring the “ramifications” of the southern border wall and its commissioning of a series examining American portraiture “through the lens of historical exclusion.” [2, 3, 20] The American History Museum was criticized for displaying an “Intersex-Inclusive Progress Pride flag” and for an exhibit featuring a satirical Statue of Liberty holding a tomato instead of a torch, used in immigrant farmworker demonstrations. [2, 4, 15, 20, 21] A stop-motion animation about former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci also made the list. [2, 4, 5]

Smithsonian and Artists Push Back

In the wake of the White House’s accusations, Smithsonian artists and scholars have voiced their staunch defense of intellectual and artistic freedom. Many artists whose works were singled out viewed the White House’s criticism as a “badge of honor.” [15] Roberto Lugo, whose sculpture was featured in the Smithsonian American Art Museum’s “Shape of Power” exhibit, described the experience of his work being targeted as “scary,” yet also validating its importance in sparking crucial conversations. [12]

The Smithsonian Institution, which receives a significant portion of its budget from Congress but operates with institutional independence, issued a statement affirming that its work is “grounded in a deep commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history.” [6, 18] Freedom of expression organizations, including PEN America, have expressed serious alarm, condemning the administration’s actions as a form of “historical censorship” and an attempt to “strip truth from the institutions that tell our national story.” [18] While Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III reportedly removed an initial pamphlet on “whiteness” after prior criticism, the institution later restored references to presidential impeachments in a separate display, demonstrating a complex navigation of political pressures. [7, 23]

This confrontation underscores a widening ideological divide concerning how American history and identity should be presented and interpreted. The White House’s explicit list of “objectionable art” represents a direct challenge to the curatorial autonomy of federally funded museums, raising profound questions about the future of cultural institutions as neutral arbiters of public knowledge and artistic expression. [12, 18]