Trump to Use Harvard-Columbia Playbook to Purge ‘Woke’ Content From Museums, Threatening Smithsonian Funding
A short introductory summary
President Donald Trump has directed his legal team to explore strategies aimed at reducing what he characterizes as “woke” content in museums by adopting the playbook he says his administration used against colleges and universities. The command, voiced in a Truth Social post, singles out the Smithsonian Institution and references an executive order issued in March that targeted museum content as part of a broader push to curb what he describes as ideological bias. The post broadens the scope beyond Washington, suggesting that museums nationwide are pursuing a woke narrative. A White House official indicated that the president will examine all options to remove woke content from the Smithsonian and hold the institution accountable. Regardless of the method, the remarks imply potential pressure on Smithsonian funding, much of which comes from the federal government, should the administration pursue a narrative overhaul of curatorial materials and public programming.
In the days after the post, White House officials signaled a significant step: a comprehensive internal review of Smithsonian museums to ensure alignment with the administration’s policy aims. The officials named senior staff members Lindsey Halligan, Vince Haley, and Russell Vought as coordinating the effort in line with the March executive order to “remove improper ideology” from Smithsonian properties. At the heart of the issue is a request directed at eight Smithsonian museums to hand over materials within 30 days relating to exhibits and content connected to America’s upcoming 250th anniversary, along with a broader array of related materials. The targeted museums include the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and the National Museum of the American Indian. The Smithsonian responded by stating it is reviewing the request and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and its governing Board of Regents. The episode underscores how funding—predominantly federal—could become a lever in the ongoing political and cultural contest surrounding how America’s past is presented in premier national institutions.
Section 1: Trump’s push to “snuff out woke content” at museums and the March executive-order context
The current moment in Washington has revived a contentious debate over how national cultural institutions represent history, identity, and national achievement. President Trump’s Truth Social post asserts a directive to his lawyers to “go through the museums” and duplicate the approach previously used against colleges and universities. The language emphasizes a demand for potential remediation or removal of what the president calls woke content—a term he and his allies frequently employ to describe progressive or inclusive framing of historical events and social issues. In the post, the president specifically calls out the Smithsonian Institution and notes that its content has been a focal point of his administration’s concerns. The reference to an executive order issued in March signals that a formal policy instrument is in play, one designed to curb what the White House describes as “improper ideology” on federal property.
Crucially, the president’s post extends his critique beyond the Smithsonian as a single institution and frames the issue as a nationwide problem. He asserts that museums across the country are “essentially, the last remaining segment of ‘WOKE,’” implying a broad, systemic problem that would warrant federal intervention or at least political scrutiny. The rhetoric frames the issue not merely as internal curatorial disagreements but as a national cultural and political battleground. A White House official later described the president’s stance as inclusive of examining all options and avenues to remove woke content from Smithsonian facilities and to hold the institution accountable for what is framed as misalignment with federal priorities. This point is significant because it signals a potential shift from isolated policy statements to a more aggressive posture involving oversight and potential funding leverages.
From a policy perspective, the reference to a March executive order anchors the discussion in a formal instrument that purportedly authorizes the administration to take steps aimed at removing content deemed ideologically inappropriate from Smithsonian properties. Although specifics of the order were not detailed in the post, the framing suggests a broader intent to shape public programming and exhibits to conform with a defined political and ideological standard. The president’s remarks imply a continuity of strategy seen in other areas of governance where the administration has used selective funding criteria and oversight mechanisms to press organizations to alter content or practices. The post’s insistence that the Smithsonian’s programming has become a locus of national contention underscores the potential for federal funding decisions to function as a pressure point in cultural policy.
The post also alludes to the broader tactic of applying a “college playbook” to museums—a phrase that signals a deliberate attempt to replicate a set of actions previously employed against higher education institutions. Those actions have included investigations, audit-focused reviews, threats to tax-exempt status, and leverage through federal research funding. By invoking this parallel, the president is signaling that the Smithsonian could be targeted with similar scrutiny and that policy instruments used to influence colleges might be extended to museums with federal governance. The use of assertive language—“snuff out woke content,” “remove improper ideology,” and “hold them accountable”—frames the Smithsonian as a battleground where the administration seeks to reorient public discourse and narrative emphasis. This framing is crucial for readers to understand the ethical, legal, and practical implications of any policy moves that may follow, including the potential impact on scholarly independence, museological practice, and the public’s access to diverse historical perspectives.
Section 2: The Smithsonian’s response, the eight-museum materials request, and the scope of the internal review
In the wake of the president’s statements and the White House’s stated intent to pursue a comprehensive internal review, the Smithsonian’s leadership has begun to respond with measured caution and a commitment to ongoing dialogue. The White House action appears to center on eight Smithsonian museums, which have been asked to provide materials within a 30-day window. These materials pertain to any exhibits related to America’s upcoming 250th anniversary, as well as a broader spectrum of related content that could be construed as part of the national narrative. The list of targeted museums includes several of the institution’s flagship centers: the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and the National Museum of the American Indian. The scope of this request suggests a comprehensive review of how national storytelling is framed across multiple branches of the Smithsonian’s portfolio, from core historical exhibits to more recent or interpretive installations that address identity, race, and national milestones.
The Smithsonian’s public response emphasized a readiness to engage with policymakers and stakeholders in a constructive manner. A spokesperson indicated that the Smithsonian is reviewing the White House’s request and that it will continue to collaborate with the White House, Congress, and its governing Board of Regents. This stance reinforces the institution’s claim to operate under a framework of governance that includes federal oversight but also a mandate to preserve academic integrity and curatorial independence. The interconnected roles of the Smithsonian’s governance bodies—its Board of Regents, the Secretary of the Smithsonian, and involved operational leadership—play a central part in how the institution navigates political pressure while maintaining public trust.
In parallel, senior White House officials announced the launch of a “comprehensive internal review” designed to assess internal practices, policies, and content curation that could be perceived as deviating from the administration’s policy aims. The officials named specific White House staffers—Lindsey Halligan, the secretary’s representative in this context; Vince Haley, the Domestic Policy Council Director; and Russell Vought, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget—signaling an elevated level of coordination between the executive branch and the Smithsonian in this matter. The focus of the review is to determine whether any “improper ideology” exists within Smithsonian properties and to identify steps necessary to align these public-facing institutions with the administration’s expectations. The timing of these developments—shortly after the president’s post—suggests an escalation in oversight that could shape curatorial decisions, exhibit development, and educational programming across the Smithsonian system.
From the Smithsonian’s perspective, the immediate concern is preserving scholarly autonomy while engaging in a transparent process that addresses national concerns about narrative control. The institution emphasized its intent to collaborate with government bodies and its own governance apparatus to address the matter. The response reflects a careful balance: honoring the obligation to provide public access to a full spectrum of American history and culture, while acknowledging political realities that seek to influence how that history is presented. The 250th anniversary milestone underscores the importance of thoughtful, inclusive storytelling about America’s past, present, and future—an objective that may appear at odds with calls for a narrower, more ideologically constrained narrative. As the internal review unfolds, museum staff and leadership face a dual pressure: to maintain rigorous scholarly standards and to respond to a political climate that prizes a particular interpretation of “American exceptionalism” and national identity. The outcome of this process could have implications for exhibit development, acquisitions, public programs, and partnerships with scholars and communities that have historically contributed to the Smithsonian’s mission.
Section 3: Funding leverage and implications for Smithsonian and higher education
A central undercurrent in the unfolding developments is the potential leverage of federal funding. The Smithsonian, as a federally funded institution, relies heavily on government support to sustain operations, research, and public programming. The Trump administration’s stated strategy—mimicking the tactics employed against colleges and universities—positions funding as a principal instrument for shaping content and policy at Smithsonian properties. The implication is that cultural institutions, which often pride themselves on intellectual independence and scholarly rigor, could be compelled to align with a political framework in order to secure ongoing federal support. The post’s language and the White House’s stated intentions hint at a broader plan to link funding decisions to content governance, curatorial direction, and the framing of national narratives in exhibitions and educational offerings.
Historically, the administration has leveraged federal research funding to pressure universities and research institutions to address concerns about antisemitism, discrimination against conservatives, and other perceived ideological biases. Reports indicate that the government has withheld or threatened billions of dollars in federal support for American universities, creating a chilling effect across research communities. More than two dozen universities reportedly have been affected by these actions, with Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, and Duke among the notable names cited. In Harvard’s case, actions have included scrutiny of tax-exempt status and moves to curtail international student enrollment, among other measures. The pattern suggests a multipronged approach: investigations, regulatory reviews, potential financial penalties, and careful audits designed to influence institutional behavior. Translating this playbook to Smithsonian settings implies a potential recalibration of research agendas, exhibit topics, and access policies to align with an administration’s preferences.
The potential consequences of applying funding leverage to museums extend beyond immediate policy changes. If funding becomes contingent on curatorial content or interpretive framing, the Smithsonian could experience shifts in research priorities, exhibition planning, and scholarly collaborations. Curators and researchers might face uncertainty about job security, project funding, and the ability to pursue controversial or challenging topics that might be deemed politically sensitive. The dynamic could also influence donor relations, philanthropic engagement, and the institution’s long-term financial resilience. Given that the Smithsonian operates across multiple museums with diverse audiences, aligning content with a single political criterion risks narrowing the breadth of perspectives presented to the public, potentially diminishing the role of museums as forums for open inquiry and inclusive historical memory. The security and resilience of academic inquiry in such an environment depend on the institution’s governance commitments, legal protections for scholarly autonomy, and robust internal policies that safeguard the integrity of research and curation against political interference.
Section 4: The White House playbook: copying the college approach to museums and the legal-political context
The idea of applying a “college playbook” to museums represents a deliberate attempt to replicate a strategy that has already been deployed in the higher education sector. Proponents of this approach argue that colleges and universities—particularly those receiving federal research funding—can be pressured through investigations, compliance reviews, and funding threats to address concerns about ideology, speech constraints, and campus climate. By extending this playbook to the Smithsonian, the administration signals a willingness to broaden the scope of oversight and to treat cultural institutions as political and policy instruments rather than as autonomous custodians of national memory and education. Critics warn that such a shift could have chilling effects on curatorial practice, scholarly collaboration, and the openness of public discourse within museums. The central issue is whether the government’s oversight and funding mechanisms should be used to influence the content of cultural institutions or whether independent curatorial judgment should be allowed to guide how history is represented to the public.
The legal landscape surrounding federal museums adds another layer of complexity. The Smithsonian Institution operates under a unique governance framework that involves the federal government and a Board of Regents, which includes appointees by the president and leaders of Congress, alongside ex officio members from the Smithsonian’s own structure. This arrangement creates a governance dynamic that can be more susceptible to political direction than private museums, while still maintaining a legal obligation to adhere to federal standards and reporting requirements. The legal questions associated with intervening in museum content—especially content that addresses sensitive topics such as slavery, Indigenous histories, and civil rights—are nuanced. Courts have historically recognized the importance of academic freedom and institutional autonomy in higher education, but the Smithsonian’s federal status complicates the analysis. Any significant policy shift that influences content would most likely require careful navigation of statutory authorities, constitutional considerations, and the Smithsonian’s own governance agreements. The balance between accountability to public funding and protection of scholarly integrity remains central to the ongoing discussion about how much influence the executive branch should exert over public museums.
In this context, the March executive order referenced in public statements raises questions about the scope and mechanisms of executive authority over federally funded cultural institutions. The order’s stated goal—to remove ideologies deemed improper from Smithsonian properties—reflects a particular interpretation of national values and public messaging. Yet, it also raises concerns about whether policy instruments designed to address broader concerns—such as equity, inclusion, and representation—could be repurposed to constrain academic inquiry and curatorial practice. Legal experts, museum professionals, and policymakers will likely scrutinize whether such orders overstep constitutional boundaries or statutory mandates and whether they align with the Smithsonian’s mission to educate the public through research, exhibitions, and educational programming that reflect the complexity and diversity of American history. The implications extend beyond a single dispute: they touch on fundamental questions about the purpose of public museums, the responsibilities of government-funded institutions, and the long-term health of independent scholarship in the United States.
Section 5: Potential consequences for museums, exhibitions, and scholarship
If the administration’s approach proceeds toward broad oversight of Smithsonian content and the use of funding as a lever to shape public exhibitions, several tangible consequences could emerge. First, there could be a measurable impact on curatorial decisions and exhibition development. Museums might alter narratives, adjust interpretive frames, or defer controversial topics to avoid friction with federal authorities or risk to funding. This could slow the introduction of new scholarship, particularly on sensitive or contested aspects of American history, and could limit the visibility of diverse perspectives that challenge prevailing narratives. Public programming—the lectures, symposia, and community engagement activities that accompany exhibitions—could also experience adjustments in focus or even cancellation if they are perceived as politically risky. The net effect would be a potentially narrower range of voices and topics represented in the Smithsonian’s public offerings.
Second, institutional autonomy could be compromised, at least in perception. Curators and researchers may experience increased self-censorship as they anticipate political scrutiny or funding consequences. This chilling effect not only affects current display practices but could also influence long-range planning, acquisitions, and partnerships with scholars, cultural organizations, and communities that historically contributed to the breadth of the Smithsonian’s programming. Donor confidence and philanthropic funding might be affected as well, with private supporters reassessing commitments if they perceive that public funding and policy directives could dictate curatorial choices. A reduction in philanthropic flexibility could further constrain the institution’s ability to pursue ambitious or innovative projects that do not align with the administration’s immediate preferences.
Third, the broader museum field could experience ripples through collaborative networks. If the Smithsonian acts under a broader political framework to recalibrate content, other publicly funded museums and cultural institutions may feel pressure to respond in similar ways to maintain alignment with federal expectations. This could set a precedent for how public institutions handle ideological disputes, potentially leading to a normalization of government-driven content governance. Conversely, institutions that resist political pressure may experience stronger public demonstrations of autonomy, which could lead to a reconfiguration of inter-institutional collaborations, grant opportunities, and nationwide exhibit-sharing agreements. The long-term consequences would depend on the resilience of the governance structures within each museum and the extent to which boards, directors, curators, and scholars can preserve scholarly integrity under political pressure.
Fourth, there could be an impact on public trust and the role of museums as civic institutions. Museums have traditionally been spaces for public education, inquiry, and reflection on difficult aspects of national history. If audiences perceive that content is being shaped to satisfy political agendas rather than to reflect the evidence of scholarship, trust in public institutions could erode. Restoring trust might require transparent processes, clear articulation of interpretive choices, and strong reaffirmation of the principles of academic freedom and open inquiry. The Smithsonian would likely need to engage in vigorous outreach to communities, educators, researchers, and visitors to explain the rationale behind content decisions and the safeguards that protect scholarly integrity even amid political pressure.
Fifth, the policy debate surrounding the 250th anniversary celebration and related exhibits could become a flashpoint. The commemoration represents not only a milestone in American history but also a moment when the nation’s self-image is publicly reaf firmed or revised. How the Smithsonian frames the anniversary—whether through inclusive storytelling, critical examinations of past injustices, or traditional narratives—will carry symbolic weight. If political pressures influence the scope or emphasis of anniversary programming, the public’s sense of national memory could shift toward a more sanitized or weaponized narrative. Conversely, a thoughtful, inclusive approach that foregrounds multiple perspectives could help preserve the museum’s role as a forum for dialogue and reflection, even amid contested political climates.
Section 6: The broader cultural and historical debate around “WOKE” in national memory institutions
The term “WOKE” has emerged as a shorthand for a broad set of progressive and inclusive approaches to history, identity, and representation. In cultural institutions like the Smithsonian, debates over whether exhibits should foreground issues of race, gender, Indigenous sovereignty, and the legacies of oppression are central to contemporary curatorial practice. Proponents of inclusive storytelling argue that museums have a responsibility to confront difficult histories, highlight marginalized voices, and provide a more complete record of the nation’s past and its ongoing transformations. Critics, meanwhile, contend that certain framing can become ideological or partisan, potentially distorting or weaponizing history for contemporary political purposes. The clash between these perspectives is visible in staffing decisions, exhibit development, and interpretive language, in addition to funding and oversight mechanisms.
This broader debate intersects with questions about national memory and the function of public museums. When federal institutions are perceived to be pursuing narrow ideological agendas, the public may question the legitimacy of the narratives presented in exhibits and the fairness of the process by which those narratives are chosen. Conversely, when museums are transparent about their interpretive frameworks and actively engage diverse communities in the development of exhibitions, they can model inclusive public discourse and foster critical thinking. The Smithsonian’s approach to this tension is likely to influence not only its own programs but also the way other publicly funded museums address sensitive topics and diversify their collections. The outcome will depend on the balance between accountability, scholarly integrity, and public engagement, as well as on the strength of institutional governance that protects autonomy while allowing for responsible reflection of evolving social understandings.
Section 7: Governance, autonomy, and the Smithsonian’s unique federal status
The Smithsonian Institution stands at a distinctive intersection of federal oversight and museum autonomy. Its governance framework includes a Board of Regents and a leadership team that oversee a diverse portfolio of museums, research centers, and educational programs. The federal government funds a significant share of the institution’s operations, yet the Smithsonian also functions as an anchor of independent scholarship and public service. The tension between political accountability and scholarly independence is therefore an ongoing, inherent feature of its operation. The current discourse around content governance highlights how governance structures must accommodate both the public’s expectations for accountability and the need to preserve rigorous, evidence-based curatorial practices.
This governance complexity is particularly salient when policy actions are framed as national priorities. The Smithsonian’s ability to respond to such policy pressures will depend on a combination of internal guidelines, established review processes, and a clear articulation of core commitments to accuracy, transparency, and inclusion. The Board of Regents, in collaboration with the Smithsonian leadership, may need to reaffirm its statutory responsibilities, define acceptable policy boundaries, and establish safeguards to resist inappropriate external influence while engaging constructively with the executive branch and Congress. The outcome of this governance negotiation will influence not only the institution’s immediate decisions but also its long-term ability to serve as a trusted cultural steward for future generations.
Section 8: Policy implications, potential reforms, and the path forward
Looking ahead, a number of policy implications and possible reforms could emerge from the current episode. First, there could be calls for clearer guidelines on how federal institutions address ideological concerns within content and programming. Such guidelines might aim to safeguard scholarly autonomy while ensuring accountability, transparency, and public trust. Second, there could be an emphasis on formalizing processes for external reviews—whether of content, collections, or interpretive frameworks—so that stakeholders understand how decisions are made and how political considerations are weighed against scholarly evidence. Third, a broader dialogue about the role and limits of federal funding in shaping cultural content could take shape. Policymakers might seek to establish criteria for funding that protect research integrity, while outlining acceptable parameters for content governance in public institutions. Fourth, there could be initiatives to strengthen civic education and public engagement around museums’ roles in presenting a nuanced and evidence-based national history. This might involve outreach programs, citizen advisory groups, and enhanced opportunities for collaboration with communities, scholars, and educators to ensure that exhibits reflect a wide range of experiences and perspectives.
Finally, the path forward will almost certainly require ongoing dialogue among the Smithsonian’s leadership, the Board of Regents, government officials, scholars, and the public. The goal would be to reconcile political accountability with the core mission of museums to educate, illuminate, and challenge audiences through rigorous, balanced, and inclusive storytelling. Achieving this balance would help preserve the integrity of the Smithsonian as a national treasure and an institution where historians, curators, educators, and the public can engage with America’s past in a way that is both truthful and respectful of diverse viewpoints.
Conclusion
The episode surrounding President Trump’s call to remove woke content from Smithsonian museums, the subsequent internal review, and the parallel with efforts to influence higher education represents a pivotal moment in the politics of national memory. The president’s rhetoric and the White House’s stated strategy position funding as a central instrument of policy influence, signaling the potential for meaningful, lasting changes in how historical narratives are constructed and presented in one of the nation’s most recognizable cultural institutions. The Smithsonian’s response—emphasizing the review process, ongoing collaboration with government bodies, and adherence to governance frameworks—will be critical in shaping the institution’s ability to maintain scholarly integrity while navigating political pressures. The broader implications for museums and higher education hinge on how governance structures, funding policies, and public engagement strategies adapt to a rapidly evolving cultural and political landscape. As the 250th anniversary of the United States approaches, the decisions made in the coming months will have lasting consequences for how America remembers its past, how it teaches its present, and how it imagines its future. The balance between accountability, autonomy, and inclusion will test the resilience of national memory institutions and their capacity to serve a diverse and engaged public.