The ongoing Trump Smithsonian fight has evolved into one of the most consequential cultural battles of the current administration, pitting the president’s vision of American history against the institution’s longtime commitment to nonpartisan scholarship. At the center of this struggle stands Lonnie G. Bunch III, the Smithsonian’s leader, who has spent more than a year navigating relentless pressure from the White House.

Words That Should Have Been Uncontroversial

When Lonnie Bunch spoke publicly around the celebration of America’s 250th anniversary, his remarks might have seemed like plain common sense coming from almost any museum director.

He described the Smithsonian’s purpose as offering questions and answers that help people grasp the full complexity of the American story, drawing on the finest nonpartisan scholarship available. On a separate appearance, he characterized the institution as a kind of unifying force, a place welcoming to Americans regardless of whether they lean red or blue.

Yet these seemingly modest statements carried deeper weight. After enduring more than a year of intense pressure from President Trump and his allies over what they label “improper ideology,” Bunch’s comments offered a rare public window into a far more contentious behind-the-scenes struggle.

A Fight Over History Itself

The conflict reveals how Trump has worked, with mixed results, to reshape the nation’s understanding of its own past. His efforts have aimed to eliminate what he considers “wokeness,” influence which artists deserve exhibition space, and remove leaders he views as obstacles.

Throughout this period, Bunch labored to deflect or soften escalating demands from the administration. A White House report released on Saturday amid the July 4 festivities accused the institution of drifting away from straightforward historical education toward what it called extreme political activism designed to transform the country.

This scathing document zeroed in on the National Museum of American History. It built upon a March 2025 executive order from Trump bearing the title “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”

Bunch, notably the first Black secretary to lead the Smithsonian, has largely refrained from publicly sparring with the president. Without naming Trump directly, he offered a pointed observation: it frightens him when people lack the courage to confront their history, adding that such reckoning becomes unavoidable regardless.

The Opening the White House Found

The pivotal moment arrived during a board gathering. A regent posed what appeared to be an innocent question about whether a formal process existed for reviewing exhibits.

The answer proved surprisingly tangled. Traditionally, potential exhibitions passed through a committee system, with final decisions resting with Bunch and the regents. More recently, the institution had added reviews accounting for visitor preferences.

However, the sheer scale of the Smithsonian, encompassing 21 museums, the National Zoo, and 14 research and education centers, meant no single standardized process governed everything. As the questioning pressed for specifics about how exhibitions and acquisitions were filtered, it became clear the White House had discovered a vulnerability to exploit.

The Portrait Gallery Firestorm

Within weeks, Trump announced on social media that he was dismissing Kim Sajet, director of the National Portrait Gallery, branding her highly partisan and a strong supporter of diversity initiatives.

The president’s frustration soon crystallized around a specific grievance: a photograph of himself displayed in the gallery. He reportedly found it objectionable and took particular issue with accompanying text noting his two impeachments.

The situation escalated dramatically. During an emergency videoconference, Trump repeatedly telephoned Bunch, forcing him to step away multiple times as Vice President JD Vance and other allies pushed for Sajet’s removal. Eventually, Bunch stopped answering the calls, but the matter remained unresolved and was pushed to a later meeting.

Pressure and Threats Behind Closed Doors

At the subsequent gathering, Vance delivered a blunt message: the board needed to follow the president’s orders regarding Sajet and could not refuse him, pointedly noting that Trump “signs the checks.”

Vance framed his position as reasonable, insisting he wasn’t demanding someone with right-wing views but simply asking that the institution’s public face not be, in his words, a left-wing extremist.

Some regents pushed back forcefully. When Vance suggested the White House might explore defunding the Smithsonian, board members countered that the administration lacked such authority. Senator Gary Peters of Michigan delivered a sharp retort, arguing that threatening to cut funding unless the museum presented history a certain way was itself an act of politicization.

The tension peaked when a staff member displayed an image on an iPad of a painting depicting the Statue of Liberty as a Black transgender woman. The work, created by acclaimed artist Amy Sherald, was slated for an upcoming exhibition. The staffer declared it problematic and not what Americans wanted to see, prompting a stunned silence in the room.

The Aftermath and Casualties

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., serving in his role as the Smithsonian’s chancellor, guided the meeting toward a resolution affirming the board’s authority over personnel decisions, temporarily defusing the crisis.

Yet Trump ultimately achieved his goal anyway. Days later, Sajet resigned, telling staff it was the best way to serve the institution. Shortly afterward, Sherald abruptly canceled her exhibition, stating that the Smithsonian had privately attempted to open her painting to public debate over transgender rights.

The White House then dispatched a letter demanding a comprehensive assessment of everything from wall texts to social media content, with special attention to exhibitions marking the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

A Strategic Choice

Bunch confronted a difficult decision. He proposed issuing a public letter asserting that any review belonged solely to the institution. But executive committee members worried this would ignite a damaging political fight with Trump.

Roberts appeared to share these concerns, favoring a long-term approach to safeguarding the Smithsonian. Colleagues feared such a letter would place the chief justice himself in direct opposition to the president over cultural questions rather than legal ones. Bunch’s proposal was set aside.

Feeling disrespected and quietly urged by supporters either to resign or speak out more forcefully, Bunch chose a less confrontational path. His strategy aimed to protect the institution well beyond Trump’s time in office, even as the White House continued maneuvering, hoping to influence replacements for two board seats vacant since March.

Curating a Response

The exhibit Bunch ultimately created for the anniversary, titled “American Aspirations,” celebrated ideals like liberty, fairness, democracy, and progress. Its treasures included Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, Thomas Jefferson’s writing desk, and astronaut Sally Ride’s flight gear.

Notably, the exhibit didn’t shy away from the nation’s darker chapters. It featured a hymnal used by Harriet Tubman, a reminder that the Statue of Liberty originally celebrated the end of slavery with broken chains hidden beneath her robes, and a Plymouth Rock fragment paired with words from Malcolm X.

Reflecting on his approach, Bunch spoke of his deep love for the Smithsonian and his creative thinking about how to protect it. He drew on personal experience, noting that being Black in America taught him how to build allies, when to stand firm, and when to bang the table, preparation, he suggested, that readied him for this very moment.

Final Thoughts

The struggle over the Smithsonian represents far more than a bureaucratic dispute. It embodies a fundamental clash over who controls the national narrative and how America chooses to remember its complicated past. As Bunch continues his careful balancing act, the outcome may shape the country’s cultural institutions for generations to come.