The Trump administration’s announcement that it will review how Smithsonian museums present exhibits and U.S. history ahead of America’s 250th birthday next year has sparked heated media coverage that frames the story differently depending on political perspective. Left-leaning outlets focus criticism on Trump, portraying the review as a threat to the museum, while right-leaning outlets cast the Smithsonian itself as biased or politically skewed.
Negativity bias
Coverage of the story has reflected negativity bias, with media outlets emphasizing emotion over facts to shape how viewers perceive the story.
HuffPost, a news outlet on the left, ran the headline, “‘Everyone is so scared’: Inside the Smithsonian as Trump attacks art, history.” The words “attacks” and quotes about fear prime readers to view Trump negatively before facts are presented.
The Federalist, a news outlet on the right, ran the headline, “Smithsonian’s American History Museum is wall-to-wall anti-American propaganda.” It frames the museum as biased. Adjectives like “anti-American” encourage readers to interpret exhibits negatively rather than neutrally.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
The Smithsonian review
The Trump administration is conducting a coordinated review with the Smithsonian to assess exhibits ahead of the 250th birthday celebration.
“We want our museums to talk about the history of our country in a fair manner — not in a woke manner or a racist manner, which is what many — not all — but many of them are doing,” Trump said during an August 14, 2025, press conference.
The move follows a four-page White House letter directing an internal look at selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions. The letter described the review as a “constructive and collaborative effort.”
Media coverage focused on feelings
Media outlets have also chosen specific voices of commentary to give a platform over others, a form of bias toward one side of the issue over another. These voices are often used to inject emotionally charged language into coverage where it would be inappropriate for a journalist to do so.
Fox News invited podcaster and author Michael Krechmer, also known as Michael Malice, to discuss the Smithsonian review, portraying the museum in a negative light over concerns of left-wing bias.
“These museums have a constant anti-American message. If I go through any of the Smithsonian museums, I’d think America was defined by racism, sexism, all sorts of other bigotry,” Krechmer said.
CNN, on the other hand, invited comedian W. Kamau Bell to comment on the Smithsonian review, framing the Trump administration negatively amid concerns of government overreach.
“I learned in history class this is how authoritarians operate. They take over the arts, culture, museums,” Bell said.
Both examples illustrate how networks frame the story negatively — either against Trump or the Smithsonian — shaping audience perceptions rather than presenting the facts impartially about the president or the museum.
