Donald Trump has not forgotten his midsummer promise to publicly shame the Smithsonian. The Trump administration is currently preparing temporary signs that will accuse the National Museum of American History of ideological bias, according to a letter I obtained sent by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. The September 3 letter, which Burgum sent to Senator Jeff Merkley, says that the National Park Service is planning to add about a dozen signs outside the museum at an estimated cost of $84,000. Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, and Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, requested information about the initiative after Trump signed an executive order in July calling for the signs to be added.
A person familiar with the plans described some of the preparations to me. Although the Park Service has an idea of the physical structure of the signs, what the signs will actually say and who is writing the text remains a mystery to people in the agency working on them, said the person, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record. The letter from Burgum says that the signs are not finalized, but it offers a preview of what they might look like, describing a number of things “visitors should know” before they enter the museum. Burgum, whose department includes the Park Service, extensively quotes the museum’s director, Anthea Hartig, and criticizes outgoing Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch, seeking to frame both as ideologues. The letter also calls out exhibitions and materials that have touched on groups the administration has gone after, such as undocumented immigrants and transgender Americans.
“The informational signage therefore will provide visitors with important context about the exhibits they are about to encounter and the personal viewpoints that the curators of the exhibits are seeking to advance,” the letter says. It goes on to justify the move, echoing a 162-page report on the museum released by the White House and asserting that the museum is pushing “ideologies that distract from a coherent and accurate presentation of America’s story.” Burgum adds, “This may be the first instance in which executive branch intervention of this nature has become Necessary.”
The Smithsonian, which is partially federally funded, has historically operated independently, has its own governing body, and is regarded in the wider museum world as measured in its approach. The institution has been heading off threats and criticism from the Trump administration since March 2025. Recently, the administration’s attention has turned to the American-history museum, which Trump made a number of curatorial demands of on social media this past Friday, including insisting that it remove an abstract sculpture and erect a 30-foot-tall George Washington statue in its place. Although the Trump administration has accused the Smithsonian, and specifically the American-history museum, of not being patriotic enough, the museum’s leadership has pointed to the abundance of patriotic material on display inside—368 objects and 340 labels on the founding era; 54 George Washington mentions, according to Hartig—and has maintained that telling the American story in its full complexity is a crucial part of its role.
“Our work is governed by the Smithsonian’s standards of scholarship, accuracy, independence, and nonpartisanship,” Hartig told two House committees this summer. “The museum does not take sides in America’s political debates. We preserve and document the evidence of American life in all its breadth, so that the public can encounter the past and draw their own conclusions.”
Trump’s executive order calling for the displays also ordered the Park Service to direct visitors to White House–approved resources on history and include a temporary exhibit about the signers of the Declaration of Independence. The order was unprecedented, pitting two prominent American institutions against each other.
Before this presidency, few might have imagined a showdown between park rangers and history curators on the National Mall. But the White House has had to get creative in trying to control the Smithsonian. Unlike the Park Service, the museum complex is insulated from the executive branch’s whims. The signs will attempt to put a frame around the Smithsonian’s work before visitors even reach the door.
The Burgum letter suggests that the signs will be direct in their criticism of Smithsonian leadership and materials. It points to comments Hartig has made during her tenure on topics such as the scope of U.S. history, whether the museum should have an “America First” mentality, and the acknowledgment of Native American lands—and suggests that these comments are necessary information for museum visitors. The letter says, “A commitment to public transparency means that visitors should be informed about Director Hartig’s and other Smithsonian leaders’ history of racial focus” and quotes Hartig acknowledging white privilege in a November 2020 lecture during the height of the Black Lives Matter movement. The letter further asserts that visitors should be informed about “Secretary Lonnie Bunch’s history of invidious discrimination and anti-white animus,” quoting from a 2000 essay the secretary wrote discussing racial discrimination in the museum profession.
The letter goes on to call out a handful of exhibits mentioned in Trump’s report, including three that touched on transgender themes. It also mentions resources that discuss why educators should use terms such as undocumented immigrant instead of illegal alien.
After the announcement about the signs this summer, I was curious to know who might be working on the text for the displays and contacted some of the Trump administration’s go-to history experts. PragerU and Hillsdale College both helped create the Freedom Truck mobile museums touring the country this year as part of Trump’s Freedom 250 celebrations, but a PragerU spokesperson told me that the right-leaning edutainment nonprofit is not working on the Smithsonian signs, and a Hillsdale spokesperson told me that the conservative college is not “institutionally” involved. “When the College works with the administration on educational projects (the Story of America video series, for instance), we’re glad to say so,” a spokesperson wrote to me in an email.
Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation who was called by Republicans to testify about the Smithsonian at the hearings this summer, declined to comment on any involvement, writing to me that “any conversation I have with any level of government, from local dog catcher to the top of the federal level is private and confidential. Otherwise, why would they trust me?” He added, “And, no, you shouldn’t take that as a confirmation of anything.” He told me by phone that he thinks the signs are clever and that “at best, it’s a medium-term solution or a short-term solution.”
Even under pressure, the Smithsonian has continued to tell the American story. On a recent afternoon at the National Museum of American History, staff sat in a small room behind tables dotted with objects from 9/11 and spoke directly with visitors. Some museumgoers left the exhibit moved to tears, staff told me.There was no descriptive wall text, no glass, just the museum in its purest form—a conversation between historians and the public.
Leave a Reply