In March 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at what his administration described as an increasingly anti-American presentation of the nation’s history. The order directed federal museums and historical sites to emphasize America’s extraordinary heritage, its progress toward a more perfect union, and its contributions to liberty and prosperity.
There is nothing wrong with wanting people to encounter their history with a degree of pride and respect, and I do believe that many institutions have moved beyond a basic criticism of some of America’s failures to a place of using these shortcomings to define America as a whole, viewing our history in an oppressor versus oppressed narrative framework, and teaching this to the younger generation as if it were absolute truth.
The idea that there is a certain self-loathing of America and American ideals prevalent in academia and media has been a longtime conservative whipping boy, although the complaint no longer seems confined to conservative intellectual circles. Some segments of our political spectrum seem to recoil at the very thought of patriotism or pride in the nation’s heritage. There have even been those who have claimed our entire heritage is simply a program of white supremacy. We do have things to be proud of in American history. This is, in fact, the birthplace of modern liberty.
The high-minded principles in our founding documents have been used time and again to modify our society, expanding democratic processes and addressing inequalities in our civil liberties. America has spearheaded innovation and enterprise, creating a way of life that is both imitated and coveted around the world. America has stood up to totalitarian states and presided over the cultural and technological progress of the modern age. A patriotic history, however, does not have to pretend that we have always conformed to the principles of liberty that have defined us.
Those who write the curriculum of our schools or write the inscriptions and organize the exhibits at our national museums claim, “We’re just teaching history.” However, there are obviously interpretive choices involved in the presentation of history. Someone decides what exhibit in a museum is “Exhibit A” or “B.” Someone produces and approves the content that accompanies the exhibit on the wall. The word “story” is built into the word history. Without it, the study would be a collection of dusty artifacts and random trivia completely devoid of meaning. The academic institutions are very certainly presenting the “story” of America in a specific frame, one that many on the Right see as explicitly ideologically leftist. In the classroom, history is often interpreted through an ideological framework emphasizing power, oppression, identity, and group conflict. It seems ludicrous to indoctrinate the future leaders of your country with a general disdain for it. Do I think that the president’s claims of ideological institutional capture are a right-wing conspiracy theory? Not in the least.
Taking Trump’s argument at face value, agreeing that there has been an ideological capture of American institutions, does not imply that the solution to this problem is to ideologically capture our institutions in the reverse direction. Continuing the fight against the left-wing takeover of the narrative, the president proceeded to review the Smithsonian in July of 2026. The administration did not demand historical accuracy. It demanded that federal historical sites should be “solemn and uplifting” and instructed officials to prevent presentations that “inappropriately disparage” Americans. Accuracy would have been a better standard. The truth is not always “uplifting.” Accuracy is a standard historians can debate using evidence. “Uplifting” is a prescribed emotional outcome. The moment the government moves from requiring accuracy to requiring the proper emotional response, it has crossed from preserving history into managing it. Trump has no greater authority over historical truth than his political opponents do. In a republic, the truth is a debate, not a government-issued public relations statement.
Would conservatives be comfortable if the next progressive president, say President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or President Gavin Newsom, decided what the “correct interpretation” of history should be? This is the real crux of the question. Is a conservative capture of our institutions justified by the previous progressive ideological capture? What stops the next president from changing the thought-policing regime to their own political preferences? Although I can find common ground with the desire to restore respect for this Republic’s past, there are few things more contrary to American ideals than the President himself commanding how our history should be taught and interpreted.
I TOURED SMITHSONIAN’S NATIVE AMERICAN MUSEUM. WHAT I SAW WAS PURE ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA
Given our four-to-eight-year changeover in administrations, American history runs the risk of being an official piñata that Republicans and Democrats hit back and forth at each other, more concerned with politicizing the past in the present than in a genuine understanding or debate.
There is a way to combat the ideological capture of our institutions. Promote and restore pluralism of ideas, professional standards, intellectual diversity, transparency, and genuine historical debate. History can be a potent propagandist’s tool, or it can be a study not only of where we came from but also of where we are capable of going. Trump is right, American history deserves better, but it deserves much better than government-approved history.
Christopher Watts is a freelance writer covering history, politics, and international affairs. His work has appeared on WorldAtlas.