Trump Escalates ‘Anti-Woke’ Campaign, Vows Extensive Review of U.S. Museums
Trump Escalates ‘Anti-Woke’ Campaign, Vows Extensive Review of U.S. Museums
President Trump has announced his intent to expand a federal review of U.S. museums, labeling institutions like the Smithsonian as “the last remaining segment of ‘WOKE’.” This declaration, made on his Truth Social platform, signals a significant escalation of his administration’s cultural policy efforts, following an initial audit launched earlier this month at the Smithsonian Institution.
Trump’s directive instructs his attorneys to initiate a process similar to the one applied to colleges and universities, aiming to “get the Woke out” of museums. While the initial focus is on the Smithsonian—which receives 62% of its funding from federal sources—a White House official confirmed plans to “go from there,” potentially impacting the estimated 22,000 museums nationwide, many of which receive some form of federal funding or operate on government-owned land.
The president’s remarks specifically targeted representations of Black American history, stating, “Everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.” The National Museum of African American History and Culture is among the eight Smithsonian museums slated for immediate review.
The move has drawn strong condemnation from museum professionals and legal experts. Marilyn Jackson, President and CEO of the American Alliance of Museums, stated that extending federal reviews to independent non-profit museums “misunderstand how museums operate,” emphasizing that their integrity relies on independence from government oversight. The Alliance, along with organizations like the Organization of American Historians, has warned of “growing threats of censorship” and a “chilling effect” across the sector, particularly after their August 15 statement.
Legal scholars, such as DePaul College of Law Professor Patty Gerstenblith, highlight that museums possess First Amendment rights of expression, making direct governmental prohibition of their content a potential constitutional violation. However, the complexities of federal funding and viewpoint discrimination, as seen in past Supreme Court cases like NEA v. Finley, suggest a nuanced legal battle ahead. Critics, including Democratic Congressional representatives and the New York City Bar, also express concerns that these actions aim to undermine civil rights protections and erase minority voices.
Disclaimer: This content is aggregated from public sources online. Please verify information independently. If you believe your rights have been infringed, contact us for removal.