"It's sickening": Trump order censoring Black history displays a "fundamental misunderstanding"

Salon - Apr 8th, 2025

An executive order by President Donald Trump has targeted the Smithsonian Institution, mandating changes in how Black history is presented within its museums, including the National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC). The order accuses the Smithsonian of promoting divisive ideologies and seeks to curb its independence by eliminating content perceived as anti-American. This move has sparked disappointment and criticism from supporters like Dawn V. Carr, who emphasize the importance of inclusive historical narratives, and public historians who argue the order undermines the integrity of evidence-based history and dialogue.

The implications of this executive order are significant, raising concerns about potential self-censorship and the erosion of critical historical scholarship. Historians like Leah Glaser and Jennifer Tucker see the order as an attack on the fundamental purpose of museums, which is to promote understanding through diverse perspectives. The Smithsonian, under financial pressure due to cuts in federal funding, faces the challenge of maintaining its mission amidst political interference. Despite these challenges, Secretary Lonnie Bunch reassures that the Smithsonian remains committed to delivering impartial and comprehensive historical narratives to the public.

Donald Trump Executive Order Smithsonian Institution National Museum Of African American History And Culture Race Public History

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a detailed and timely exploration of the implications of President Trump's executive order on the Smithsonian Institution, particularly concerning the representation of Black history. It effectively captures the perspectives of historians and museum supporters who view the order as a threat to scholarly independence and historical accuracy. However, the article would benefit from greater balance by including perspectives from proponents of the order and more direct citations from the executive order itself. While the article is generally clear and engaging, its impact is somewhat limited by the lack of official responses and balanced viewpoints. Overall, the article is a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse on cultural representation and government influence, though it could be strengthened by addressing these areas of improvement.

Accuracy

The article provides a detailed account of the executive order issued by President Trump targeting the Smithsonian Institution. It accurately describes the order's intent to remove 'divisive ideologies' and its focus on the National Museum of African American History and Culture. However, the article lacks direct citations or links to the actual text of the executive order, which would enhance verifiability. The claims about the order's implications for museum narratives and funding cuts are consistent with the general understanding of the order's purpose, but specific details about the changes required by the order are not fully substantiated within the article.

Balance

The article predominantly features perspectives critical of the executive order, including quotes from historians and museum supporters who view the order as an attack on scholarship and historical accuracy. While these viewpoints are important, the article does not provide a balanced view by including perspectives from those who support the order or the rationale behind it. This imbalance could lead readers to perceive the article as biased against the order without considering potential arguments in its favor.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow from the introduction of the executive order to the reactions of various stakeholders. The language is accessible, and the tone is neutral, making it easy for readers to follow the narrative. However, the inclusion of more direct quotes from the executive order would enhance clarity by providing readers with primary source material.

Source quality

The article relies on interviews with historians and museum supporters, which are credible and relevant sources for this topic. However, it lacks input from government officials or representatives from the Smithsonian, which would provide a more comprehensive view. The absence of official responses from the Smithsonian or the Trump administration limits the article's ability to present a fully rounded perspective.

Transparency

The article provides some context for the executive order and its potential impact on the Smithsonian Institution. However, it does not clearly disclose the methodology behind the claims made, nor does it explain any potential conflicts of interest from the sources quoted. Greater transparency regarding the basis for the claims and the selection of sources would improve the article's credibility.