Rewriting History

Honoring History or Rewriting It?

A Review of the Latest Executive Order on National Memory

A new executive order from the President aims to reshape how America presents its history, vowing to counter what it calls a “revisionist movement” that distorts the nation’s achievements and fosters division. The order specifically targets national museums, historical parks, and federally supported institutions, calling for a return to a more “uplifting” and “unifying” portrayal of America’s past.  

At its core, the order frames itself as a defense of truth and patriotism. It argues that recent historical interpretations have cast the country’s founding and legacy in an unfairly negative light, emphasizing racial and systemic injustices over American progress and achievements. The directive claims that institutions like the Smithsonian and National Parks Service have been influenced by an ideology that portrays Western and American values as inherently oppressive. The President’s solution? A push for historical narratives that emphasize the nation's accomplishments rather than its shortcomings.  

But critics argue this approach amounts to an attempt to rewrite history—not in the name of truth, but to erase uncomfortable realities. The executive order directly takes issue with museums that highlight the role of racism in American institutions, including exhibitions that discuss race as a social construct or systemic power structures that shaped American life. The document condemns museum exhibits that explore how sculptures have been used to reinforce scientific racism and criticizes discussions of “White culture” as an ideology promoting values such as individualism and hard work.  

This shift raises an important question: Is history being “restored” to a more truthful state, or is the government selectively curating which aspects of history should be told? While it is true that an overly cynical or negative view of the past can be demoralizing, an uncritical, sanitized version risks becoming propaganda rather than education.  

The debate is not new. History has always been subject to reinterpretation as new information emerges and as different generations reassess past events through contemporary lenses. The President’s executive order appears to reject this natural evolution, instead seeking to impose a rigid, celebratory narrative that downplays uncomfortable truths.  

Supporters of the order may argue that it is essential to foster national unity and pride, particularly in an era of increasing political polarization. They may see efforts to highlight historical injustices as an attack on national identity rather than a necessary reckoning with the past. But critics warn that erasing or downplaying historical injustices does not make them disappear—it only makes future generations less equipped to understand and address them.  

Ultimately, the executive order reflects an ongoing cultural battle over the meaning of history. Should America’s past be presented primarily as a story of triumph and progress, or should it also confront the contradictions and injustices that have shaped its present? In trying to shape how history is taught, the government wades into dangerous territory—where the line between education and propaganda becomes increasingly blurred.  

As this policy takes effect, the true test will be in its implementation. Will historical sites and museums be allowed to continue presenting complex, nuanced narratives? Or will they be forced into a rigid framework that prioritizes national pride over historical accuracy? Time will tell, but one thing remains clear: History is never just about the past—it is always about how we understand ourselves in the present.