The White House has tied nearly $190 million in Smithsonian funding to the institution's compliance with President Donald Trump's March 2025 executive order, "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History." That's real money, tied to a real directive.
A fiscal-year-2027 footnote sets the condition. It covers funds carried over from last year in two of the Smithsonian's main salaries and expenses accounts. The language reads: "To the extent permitted by law, amounts apportioned shall be available for obligation in a manner consistent with Executive Order 14253 (March 27, 2025), 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.'" Public records show the footnote appeared in two recent apportionments of federal funds.
The Funding Lever
The White House's Office of Management and Budget is using the condition in a broader effort to influence how the Smithsonian tells the American story. The executive order, now a year old, accuses the institution of spreading "divisive narratives."
It's a familiar Washington principle. Taxpayers fund the Smithsonian, while the executive branch controls how apportioned money gets obligated. Supporters would say that those who write the checks have a right to attach expectations. But the footnote has a built-in limit. It applies only "to the extent permitted by law," leaving room to dispute how far the condition can reach.
The pressure hasn't stopped at the budget. Trump has also tried to fire a Smithsonian museum director on social media, ordered warning signs outside its American-history museum and demanded that the museum remove a modernist sculpture he dislikes. A letter from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum revealed new details about warning signs the White House plans to install near the American-history museum.
Rally Remarks Draw Fire
Separately, Trump's comments at a Monday night rally in Nebraska sparked a political fight. Discussing the Iran war and the resulting high gas prices, which have become a midterm liability for Republicans, the president said Iran could "take out" Los Angeles or San Diego. He called that possibility "a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe."
The White House forcefully challenged the coverage Tuesday. Communications Director Steven Cheung said people had misunderstood and misrepresented the remarks in a "media freakout" that was "not rooted in reality." Cheung wrote: "He was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped. America is safer because of the President." He added that Iran "has no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money." The White House said Trump wasn't calling for an attack on U.S. cities; he was explaining that he wanted to prevent Iran from gaining that capability.
Iran says it isn't pursuing nuclear weapons, though it has enriched uranium to near-weapons-grade levels that have no civilian purpose.
Trump delivered the remarks in his familiar, meandering rally style. He speaks for extended periods, often an hour or more, and only occasionally follows prepared remarks on a teleprompter.
The Political Reaction
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who could run for president in 2028, called Trump "deranged and dangerous," saying he was "saying our foreign enemies should 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego."
Democrats weren't the only ones criticizing him. Jim Desmond, the Republican congressional nominee in a metro San Diego district, also objected. "As a Navy veteran, I served to protect Americans, not write off American cities as an acceptable price of war," he wrote on social media, adding, "no American family should ever be treated as collateral damage."
Trump has often criticized U.S. cities while campaigning, especially large areas that lean heavily Democratic. At a recent North Carolina rally, he called the state's cities "blood-soaked killing fields." FBI statistics place North Carolina's violent crime rate in the middle third of states.
Why This Matters:
Two threads run through this story: the power of the purse and the weight of presidential words. The Smithsonian footnote shows how apportionment, a routine budget mechanism, can steer a federally funded institution. It's a lever future administrations of either party could pull, and the "to the extent permitted by law" qualifier suggests legal boundaries may get tested. On Iran, the White House says the point is to ensure a nuclear-armed Tehran never gains the capability to threaten American cities, a security goal many voters support. But gas prices are already a midterm liability, and a Republican nominee in San Diego publicly rebuking the president shows that unscripted rally rhetoric carries a political cost, even for allies who share the aim of keeping Iran from the bomb.