On March 27, President Trump signed the directive “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” This directive mandates that the Smithsonian Institution and the Department of the Interior work to rectify what Trump called "divisive narratives that distort our shared history." The action is part of broader efforts to reshape how arts and humanities organizations present the nation's past and present. Changes include staff reductions at the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Trump has also appointed himself as the chair of the Kennedy Center's board of trustees and announced plans to change the arts organization.

These moves have been supported by Trump's allies but have also caused concern among organizations like the American Historical Association and prompted notable artists to cancel events at the Kennedy Center. In response, UC Berkeley News asked scholars from various departments to comment on the potential motivations and consequences of these actions.

Shannon Jackson shared her thoughts on the reasons behind targeting arts and culture. According to Jackson, the arts function as spaces for community connection and reflection, making them important for democratic societies. However, she warns that "autocratic leaders" may seek to control culture to consolidate power, and that historical examples, such as Nazi Germany's treatment of "degenerate" art, illustrate the dangers of cultural censorship.

Sociology graduate student Tyler Leeds commented that the right frames these actions as a return to "sanity," which resonates with their supporters. Leeds highlights how conservative elites can use culture wars to stir opposition to historical research, a tactic he explores in his research on the backlash to the 1619 Project. According to Leeds, while these cultural victories may appeal to voters, they do not address critical issues like jobs, health care, and housing.

Daniel Sargent noted that President Trump's executive order thrusts the federal government into debates over historical narratives. He emphasizes that historical disagreement benefits public policy and warns against imposing a single interpretive framework. Sargent draws parallels with Trump's economic policies, which challenge mainstream economic consensus, underscoring the value of diverse historical interpretations.

John Connelly pointed out that authoritarian regimes often seek to control historical narratives. He noted that many Americans feel uneasy with the idea that patriotism is inherently problematic, which might explain some support for these measures. Connelly also discussed how fear of repercussions for expressing certain views can affect the work of historians, underscoring the importance of truth-seeking in the field.