The Trump administration has warned that federal agencies may stop providing support to the Smithsonian Institution, accusing its leadership of promoting what it calls a "culture of ideological activism." This warning is part of a growing disagreement over how the Smithsonian, the world's largest museum complex, presents its exhibits. In a letter sent to the Smithsonian last Friday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and the president's assistant for domestic policy, Vince Haley, cited a July White House report that highlighted "alarming examples" of "radical ideology" in the museum's exhibits and programming. The letter emphasized that the Smithsonian receives over $1 billion annually from Congress, as well as support from federal agencies, which the officials said they could no longer provide in good conscience under the current leadership. The officials requested that the Smithsonian's Board of Regents meet with them to discuss the findings of the White House report. The Smithsonian declined to comment on the matter. In July, the president issued an executive order directing the National Park Service to place disclaimers outside the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History (NMAH), stating that some of its exhibits contain "inaccurate information" about American history. The order, titled "Restoring trust in the Smithsonian Institution," used the White House report to justify the new temporary signage. The president claimed the report showed that the Smithsonian leadership does not present American history as a shared national inheritance, but instead uses it as a "prime tool" to advance ideas of social justice and societal transformation. In response to criticism from Republicans, NMAH Director Anthea Hartig testified before a congressional panel in July, defending the museum's approach. She argued that the White House report "does not fairly or accurately" reflect the museum's exhibits. Hartig emphasized that the museum does not take sides in political debates and aims to preserve and document the full breadth of American life, allowing the public to engage with the past and form their own conclusions. The dispute highlights a broader ideological conflict over how history is interpreted and presented in public institutions.