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 heritage, progress toward a more perfect union, and contributions to liberty and prosperity.
The desire for people to engage with their history positively is acknowledged, yet there is a concern that some institutions have shifted from a basic criticism of America’s failures to framing history in an oppressor versus oppressed narrative, teaching this perspective as absolute truth.
The notion of self-loathing regarding America and its ideals has been a longstanding critique among conservatives, and it appears to extend beyond conservative circles. Some segments of the political spectrum express discomfort with patriotism or pride in the nation’s heritage, with claims that American heritage is merely a program of white supremacy. However, there are aspects of American history that warrant pride, including its role in modern liberty.
The principles in founding documents have been utilized to modify society, expand democratic processes, and address inequalities in civil liberties. America has been a leader in innovation and has opposed totalitarian regimes, contributing to cultural and technological advancements. A patriotic history does not require ignoring the times when the nation has failed to uphold its principles of liberty.
Those involved in writing school curricula or organizing museum exhibits often assert they are simply teaching history. However, interpretive choices are inherent in the presentation of history, as decisions are made about which exhibits to highlight and how to contextualize them. The term 'story' is integral to 'history,' suggesting that without a narrative framework, history would lack meaning. Many on the Right perceive the current presentation of American history as ideologically leftist, often interpreted through lenses of power, oppression, identity, and group conflict. The concern is that indoctrinating future leaders with disdain for their country is misguided.
Accepting Trump’s assertion of ideological capture in American institutions does not imply that the solution is to impose a conservative ideology in return. In July 2026, Trump reviewed the Smithsonian, where the administration sought to ensure that federal historical sites were 'solemn and uplifting,' discouraging presentations that might 'inappropriately disparage' Americans. A focus on accuracy would be more appropriate, as truth is not always uplifting. When the government shifts from requiring accuracy to mandating emotional responses, it moves from preserving history to managing it. Trump does not hold greater authority over historical truth than his political opponents. In a republic, truth should be a subject of debate rather than a government-issued statement.
The question arises whether conservatives would be comfortable with a future progressive president dictating the 'correct interpretation' of history. This highlights the concern of whether a conservative takeover of institutions is justified by a previous progressive one. The risk is that future administrations may alter the narrative to fit their political preferences. While there is common ground in the desire to restore respect for the nation’s past, it contradicts American ideals for a president to dictate how history should be taught and interpreted.
With the frequent change in administrations, American history risks becoming a political tool, manipulated by both parties rather than fostering genuine understanding or debate. A solution to countering ideological capture involves promoting pluralism of ideas, professional standards, intellectual diversity, transparency, and authentic historical debate. History can serve as a tool for propaganda or as a study of our origins and potential future. While Trump is correct that American history deserves better, it should not be subject to government approval.