Not Content With His Present Power, Trump Tries to Control the Past, too | Opinion

Newsweek - Apr 2nd, 2025

President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing Vice President JD Vance to eliminate what he perceives as 'distorted narratives' from the Smithsonian Institution's museums and educational centers. The order calls for removing exhibits promoting 'divisive, race-centered ideology,' such as one at the Smithsonian American Art Museum that acknowledges the historical use of race to establish systems of power. Additionally, the order demands the restoration of monuments removed since January 2020, many of which commemorate Confederate figures and were originally erected during the Jim Crow era.

This executive order has significant implications for public understanding of race and history in the United States. Critics argue it attempts to erase uncomfortable truths about America's past and reinforce racial and gender hierarchies. The order contradicts established scientific consensus that race is a social construct rather than a biological reality, challenging positions held by organizations like the American Anthropological Association. Scholars suggest that the order aligns with fascist ideologies by promoting strict racial and gender boundaries, highlighting a broader ideological struggle over history and identity in America.

Trump Jd Vance American History Smithsonian Institution Race Science Historical Revisionism Fascism

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a detailed critique of the executive order signed by President Trump, focusing on its implications for historical narratives and ideological boundaries. It effectively uses expert opinions and historical context to support its arguments, contributing to its overall accuracy and clarity. However, the article's critical tone and lack of diverse perspectives may limit its balance and engagement with a broader audience. While it addresses timely and relevant topics, its potential impact is somewhat constrained by its interpretative nature and the absence of direct sources from the administration. Overall, the article is a compelling piece that highlights significant issues but could benefit from a more balanced presentation of viewpoints.

Accuracy

The article presents a factual basis for its claims, particularly regarding the executive order signed by President Trump. It accurately describes the order's focus on removing 'distorted narratives' from the Smithsonian and other institutions. The claims about the order's intent to restore monuments and its stance on race and gender ideologies are consistent with the reported content of the order. However, some assertions, such as the comparison to fascist ideologies, are more interpretative and require additional scholarly support to be fully verified. The article could benefit from including direct quotes or links to the executive order and statements from involved parties to enhance factual precision.

Balance

The article leans heavily towards a critical perspective of the executive order and President Trump's intentions, which may suggest a bias. It frames the order as an attempt to rewrite history and aligns it with fascist ideologies, potentially omitting perspectives that might defend the order as a legitimate effort to address perceived historical inaccuracies. While it includes quotes from experts like Adam Domby and references to scholarly views, it lacks voices from those who might support the order or provide a counter-narrative, which could have provided a more balanced viewpoint.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to convey its points. It logically presents the narrative of the executive order and its implications, making it accessible to readers. The use of expert quotes and historical context helps clarify complex issues. However, some sections might benefit from more straightforward language to ensure that all readers, regardless of their familiarity with the topic, can fully understand the arguments presented.

Source quality

The article cites credible sources, including experts in history and anthropology, to support its claims. It references the American Anthropological Association and uses direct quotes from scholars, which adds credibility. However, the article would benefit from a wider range of sources, such as direct statements from the White House or officials involved in drafting the executive order. This would provide a more comprehensive view and help readers assess the reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

The article is transparent about its critical stance and the author's background, which is important for understanding potential biases. However, it could improve by clearly outlining the methodology used to interpret the executive order and by providing more context about the sources of its claims. The inclusion of direct links to the executive order or official statements would further enhance transparency by allowing readers to verify the information independently.