The Smithsonian Institution—home to 21 museums and roughly 15 million annual visitors—has long been viewed as a bipartisan steward of America’s cultural and scientific legacy. Yet that reputation is now under fire. In, a 162-page White House report accused the museum of “ideological capture,” alleging that recent exhibitions prioritize a race-centered agenda over conventional scholarship. The report was paired with a flurry of Trump-era actions: an executive order branding the Smithsonian as “divisive,” congressional hearings grilling Director Anthea Hartig, and a proposed Interior Department sign warning visitors of alleged bias.
Trump administration’s campaign against the Smithsonian
November 2021 saw the National Museum of American History debut the “The Electric Dr. Franklin” exhibit, which highlighted Benjamin Franklin’s electrical experiments while noting his ownership of enslaved people. The display suggested, without definitive proof, that enslaved labor may have aided Franklin’s famous shocks. The exhibition closed in 2025 but remains accessible online, and its language—”Benjamin Franklin’s remarkable scientific accomplishments were, in part, enabled by slavery”—became a rallying point for critics.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order labeling the Smithsonian as having succumbed to “divisive, race-centered ideology.” The order was timed to coincide with the nation’s 250th-anniversary celebrations on July 4. That same month, two House committees hosted back-to-back hearings where Republican members interrogated Hartig about items such as a “chrome and rubber crotch harness” exhibited in a contemporary art context. Shortly after, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum mailed a letter to the Board of Regents stating that other federal agencies could not, in good conscience, continue supporting the Smithsonian under its current leadership.
Historical tensions within the National Museum of American History
The museum, originally opened in 1964 as the National Museum of History and Technology, was charged by former assistant secretary Remington Kellogg with “awakening” the public to the United States’ inspirational story. A 1980 name change to the National Museum of American History broadened its mission, yet the institution struggled to fuse its technology-focused roots with a comprehensive national narrative. Critics such as David Brooks (1999) accused the museum of sidelining pivotal events—like the Constitutional Convention or the Great Depression—in favor of a “multicultural grievance” perspective.
In response, a blue-ribbon commission led by Richard Darman issued a 2002 report calling for a “transformation” that would balance celebration of American achievements with honest accounting of failures. The commission’s recommendations included a chronological introductory gallery and thematic “central lines” for interpretation. Implementation proved difficult; the building itself, described by Ada Louise Huxtable as an “awkward attempt to marry the classical and the modern,” limited cohesive storytelling.
Subsequent directors—Brent Glass, John Gray, and others—pivoted toward thematic galleries rather than a strict timeline. Exhibits such as “American Enterprise,” “American Democracy,” “Many Voices, One Nation,” and “The Price of Freedom” attempted to compartmentalize the nation’s story. Yet each gallery sparked its own controversy: donors balked at the prominence of slavery in the business narrative, while veterans’ groups were consulted to temper the militaristic “Price of Freedom” display. Despite these challenges, staff argued that visitors can handle nuance; they appreciate a museum that “doesn’t shy away from the whole story.”
Current leadership crisis and budget threats
The Smithsonian’s governance structure includes a 17-member Board of Regents—anchored by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, six members of Congress (three per party), nine private citizens, and the Vice President. Nevertheless, the institution relies on the federal government for roughly 62 % of its annual budget, exceeding $1 billion. In late August 2024, Interior Secretary Burgum’s letter warned that continued funding was untenable without a change in leadership. The pressure culminated on September 8, when Secretary Lonnie Bunch— the first African-American to lead the Smithsonian—announced his resignation, citing “stress.”
These developments arrive as the nation celebrates its quadricentennial independence milestones, turning what should be a unifying moment into a partisan flashpoint. Former board member Garret Graves recalled warning of a “day of reckoning” during 2023-2024 board discussions, a prophecy now echoing in congressional hearings and executive directives. While the Smithsonian has weathered past controversies—such as the 1995 Enola Gay exhibit dispute—its current predicament is unprecedented in scope, combining narrative disputes, budgetary intimidation, and direct political interference.
As the Smithsonian navigates this turmoil, its future hinges on whether it can reaffirm its historic mission of education and preservation while satisfying a divided government. The outcome will shape not only the institution’s fiscal stability but also the broader conversation about how America tells its own story.
