In the wake of the nation’s recent 250th anniversary, the White House issued a comprehensive critique of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History, challenging its approach to presenting the story of America’s founding. The 162-page report, released on July 4 by the White House Domestic Policy Council, accused the museum of engaging in “extreme political activism” and downplaying elements the administration regards as central to the country’s founding narrative.

The report was published hours before President Donald Trump’s Independence Day address on the National Mall and represents a continuation of the administration’s efforts to influence the Smithsonian, which oversees 21 museums and the National Zoo. The Organization of American Historians condemned the report, describing it as an example of executive overreach aimed at compelling the Smithsonian to frame U.S. history in ways that align with the administration’s political goals.

Among the report’s key criticisms is the museum’s handling of the 250th anniversary. It contends that the museum failed to produce an exhibit devoted to a cohesive national story or the key founding figures and events, such as the Second Continental Congress and the Declaration of Independence. Instead, the Smithsonian showcased “In Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness,” a scavenger hunt-style display featuring 250 objects spanning American history, which the report labeled disjointed and insufficiently celebratory of the founders.

The report also raised concerns over how artifacts are displayed, particularly singling out Thomas Jefferson’s portable drafting desk for the Declaration of Independence. It claimed the desk remained in its usual case with only a bilingual label change, although Smithsonian leadership pointed out that the desk had been relocated to the Smithsonian Castle as the centerpiece of a new exhibition titled “American Aspirations,” curated by Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III.

The White House report further challenges the museum’s refusal to present a single, definitive narrative about the Revolution, criticizing a wall text that questions how Americans should remember the founding—either as a flawless event led by heroic patriots or as an imperfect yet aspirational movement. It takes issue with the museum’s openness to debate rather than providing “definitive information.”

Slavery and the founders are another major focus of the report’s objections. It faults the museum for placing too much emphasis on slavery, citing an exhibition about Benjamin Franklin’s scientific work that included information about his ownership of enslaved people. The administration’s approach to slavery, reflected also in its removal of interpretive signs on the President’s House Site in Philadelphia, tends to highlight the founders’ more favorable or repentant aspects while downplaying harsher truths.

The report also criticizes the museum for what it describes as selective quotations from foundational documents that, it claims, downplay references to equality, natural rights, and Christianity’s role in the nation’s founding. While most historians dispute the assertion that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, this perspective has been central to the administration’s 250th anniversary celebrations, including the May “Rededicate 250” prayer event and the federally funded “Freedom Trucks” mobile museums.

The White House report strongly disapproves of the museum’s treatment of immigration, particularly the “Many Voices, One Nation” exhibition, which celebrates the diversity of groups who contributed to the American people. The report accuses the museum of shifting focus away from traditional figures such as Christopher Columbus and the pilgrims toward what it considers “political activism and modern-day grievances.” It singles out a papier-mâché Statue of Liberty made for immigrant farmworkers as evidence of a supposed agenda to promote citizenship and voting rights for undocumented immigrants.

The report objects to the museum’s portrayal of early American leaders as restrictive in their vision of citizenship and opportunity, highlighting statements about America’s early laws limiting naturalization to “free white persons.” While the administration saw this as evidence of “anti-white animus” in the museum’s presentation, historians note that such limitations are factual and reflect early U.S. policies and racial attitudes of the time.

Overall, the White House report seeks to shape the nation’s historical narrative in a more traditional, patriotic framework, emphasizing founding myths and downplaying critical perspectives. The Smithsonian and many historians reject this approach, emphasizing the complexity and contested nature of America’s past.