Trump’s Cultural Policy Push: Smithsonian Director Fired, Public Broadcasting Funding Under Threat Amidst ‘Truth and Sanity’ Mandate

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Actions by former President Donald Trump are sparking significant debate regarding the independence of key American cultural institutions and the future of public funding for arts and media. The developments, unfolding particularly around June 2, 2025, suggest a concerted effort characterized by critics as a quest for “cultural dominance” that could fundamentally reshape the nation’s historical narrative and artistic landscape.

Dismissal at the Smithsonian

One of the most prominent actions was the abrupt dismissal of Kim Sajet, the long-standing Director of the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. The announcement came directly from Mr. Trump via his Truth Social platform. In his characteristic style, he described Ms. Sajet as “a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.” The firing of a director from a prestigious institution within the Smithsonian complex – a federally funded group of museums and research centers traditionally operating with a degree of independence – immediately raised questions about political interference in cultural governance.

Ms. Sajet had overseen the National Portrait Gallery during a period that included high-profile acquisitions and exhibitions, including the popular portraits of Barack and Michelle Obama. Critics argue that removing a director based on perceived political leanings or support for Diversity, Equity, and and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives sets a concerning precedent for institutions meant to serve a broad public and uphold academic and artistic freedom.

‘Restoring Truth and Sanity’ Executive Order

Adding to the concerns is a sweeping executive order signed by the former president, titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” This order has been widely characterized by opponents as an “authoritarian mandate.” Its stated goal is to reshape the presentation and understanding of American history, as well as influencing content across the arts, letters, sports, and media sectors.

The specific mechanisms outlined in the order reportedly aim to direct federal agencies and institutions receiving federal funds towards a particular interpretation of the nation’s past and cultural output. Historians, artists, and civil liberties advocates have voiced alarm, suggesting such a directive could stifle critical inquiry, promote a narrow, state-sanctioned narrative, and potentially sideline diverse perspectives that contribute to a comprehensive understanding of American identity.

Sources familiar with the order’s drafting indicate it seeks to prioritize certain historical interpretations while discouraging others deemed politically unfavorable. The broad scope, encompassing not just history but also arts, letters, sports, and media, highlights the ambition of the directive to influence a wide array of public cultural expression.

Threat to Public Broadcasting

Simultaneously, details emerged regarding the Trump administration’s alleged intent to cease public financing for key public broadcasting entities, specifically PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) and NPR (National Public Radio). This purported goal was to be achieved through directives issued to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and other relevant federal agencies responsible for allocating funds.

Public broadcasting in the United States operates through a mix of federal funding (primarily via the CPB), corporate sponsorships, and listener/viewer donations. Federal funding, while a minority of the total budget for many stations, is often crucial seed money, particularly for smaller stations in rural or underserved areas. Critics of defunding argue it would decimate public media’s ability to provide educational programming, in-depth journalism, and cultural content that commercial media often does not.

The threat to defund NPR and PBS has been a recurring theme in conservative political discourse for decades. However, the explicit intent via executive action represents a significant escalation. In response to these moves, NPR and a consortium of public radio stations have reportedly filed a lawsuit against the Trump White House, challenging the legality of attempting to cut off funding through executive orders or agency directives.

Implications for American Culture

These actions – the targeted dismissal of a museum director, the issuance of a broad executive order on historical interpretation and cultural content, and the effort to eliminate public broadcasting funding – are seen by many as interconnected components of a strategy to assert greater political control over institutions that shape public understanding and cultural discourse. Critics argue that such interference undermines the very foundations of independent cultural and educational bodies, which are vital for a functioning democracy and contribute significantly to “what makes America great” – a diversity of ideas, robust public discourse, and access to unbiased information and varied cultural perspectives.

Supporters of Mr. Trump’s actions contend that institutions like the Smithsonian and public broadcasting have become overly politicized and fail to represent a balanced view of American history and culture. They argue that redirecting or eliminating funding and changing leadership is necessary to restore ideological balance and fiscal responsibility.

As of June 2, 2025, the future of these cultural institutions and their funding remains uncertain, subject to ongoing legal challenges and the broader political landscape. The trajectory of these disputes is likely to have lasting consequences for the accessibility and independence of cultural and informational resources across the United States.