This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.
Welcome to The Logoff: The head of the Smithsonian Institution will resign after weathering nearly two years of attacks by President Donald Trump.
What’s happening? Lonnie G. Bunch III, the secretary of the Smithsonian, announced on Tuesday that he will step down at the end of 2026 after more than seven years in the role.
Bunch’s retirement isn’t entirely about Trump; he’s 73 and has already served longer as secretary than his two most recent predecessors.
But the president, who has waged a relentless campaign against what the White House has described as “improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology” at the Smithsonian, is indisputably part of the story. As Bunch put it to the New York Times on Tuesday, “at a certain point, I’d like to wake up in the morning and not look at my cellphone.”
What has Trump done to the Smithsonian? Since last spring, Trump has gone after the Smithsonian system for promoting “narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.” He has threatened its funding, forced out the director of the National Portrait Gallery, and attempted to meddle with its exhibits. His ability to successfully make changes has been limited by the Smithsonian’s structure — but a new secretary could give Trump far more control.
The president also, unsurprisingly, wants more Trump: administration officials have reportedly pressed for a new Portrait Gallery exhibit focusing on the president.
What’s next? Trump doesn’t officially have a role in selecting Bunch’s successor, who will be chosen by the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents — but that board does include Vice President JD Vance and multiple Republican members of Congress, so he might as well.
And with that, it’s time to log off…
Don’t miss my colleague Rachel Cohen Booth’s new piece on the “smartphone trap”: the way in which phones have become not just ubiquitous, but required for many parts of daily life (reading a menu, parking a car, signing into an account — the list goes on).
As Rachel argues, it’s not too late to preserve, or claw back, the option of going through life phone-free. “Pushing for a non-smartphone option is about accessibility, affordability, and agency. It’s about demanding the kind of freedom in a society we deserve to have,” she writes.
You can read her full story here with a gift link — enjoy, and we’ll see you right back here tomorrow!
