I listen to NPR almost as a rule when I’m driving. It is, of course, absurdly biased. The preciousness is also hilarious at times.
So how do you think they would report on the Trump Administration’s action to press the taxpayer-funded Smithsonian Institution to correct divisive, agenda-driven, and erroneous bias in displays? Rod Dreher posts on X that he too apparently listens to NPR in the car and heard this:
Listening to NPR in car. News show saying Trump admin forcing Smithsonian to change some narratives in exhibits. Zero explanation of why. You are meant to think this is typical right wing crazy, such that no reason necessary to explain the move.
— Rod Dreher (@roddreher) August 13, 2025
“Disappointment and Concern”
I looked up the story and it is indeed ridiculous. Reporter Michel Martin gives a little bit of context at the beginning. She says, “In a letter to the head of the institution, White House officials say they want to be sure the museums are reflecting the, quote, ‘unity, progress and enduring values that define the American story.’” She adds, “In a statement to NPR, the Smithsonian says it is reviewing the letter while keeping in mind its, quote, ‘commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research and the accurate factual presentation of history,’ unquote.”
She goes on to interview Georgetown University art historian Lisa Strong, who voices her “disappointment and concern” that “you would have any interference in the content of an exhibition.” Professor Strong notes something interesting: “Survey after survey has shown that museums are one of the most trusted institutions, and a recent survey by AAM shows that museums are trusted second only to people’s friends and relatives.” AAM presumably stands for the American Alliance of Museums: meaning that the museums themselves are telling you how incredibly trustworthy they are.
Not a Single Example
The problem is that in a four-minute report whose transcript runs to 819 words, neither interviewer nor interviewee gives a single example of what anyone has objected to and would want to see fixed in a Smithsonian exhibit. The impression is left, as Dreher points out, that the whole exercise by the White House is for the purpose of being meddlesome meanies and control-freaks.
Writing here, in a public letter to the Smithsonian, and in the New York Post, geologist Casey Luskin has detailed one concern: blatant inaccuracies in the Human Origins exhibit at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH). The errors and biased oversimplifications of scholarly material all run in one direction: to persuade visitors that humans aren’t exceptional beings in nature but are, instead, separated by only very minor differences from chimps or ape-like ancestors.
As Professor Strong says, “the purpose of museums is to do some original research, depending on the museum, but also to interpret academic research” for visitors. Yes, but to interpret that research accurately! She adds, “I think museum professionals feel very strongly the responsibility to present accurate information to the public. And again, this is why it’s so concerning that you would have any interference in the content of an exhibition.”
Ax-Grinding Misinformation
Yet the “interference” is not unreasoned or unscholarly: it seeks to address faulty, misleading material that the “museum professionals” are allowing to stand, uncorrected. The NPR story couldn’t give the Human Origins hall as an example, because if they did, that would prove that the so-called interference is needed. I hope the Trump Administration is including the ax-grinding misinformation at the NMNH, aimed at denying human exceptionalism, in its directing the Smithsonian to fix its exhibits.
For more, see Dr. Luskin’s New York Post op-ed here and an interview on the subject here with Andrew McDiarmid.