Since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, the Smithsonian Institution, particularly its National Museum of American History, has come under increasing scrutiny by the administration. In March 2025, Trump issued an executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which accused the Smithsonian of promoting a “divisive, race-centered ideology” and portraying American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.

Following this order, the White House Domestic Policy Council released a 162-page report on July 4, 2026, criticizing the museum and its director, Anthea Hartig, for adopting an ideological approach that frames American history as a tool to politically divide and demoralize citizens. The report alleges that the Smithsonian’s leadership is engaged in “extreme political activism” aimed at transforming the country. This report triggered a congressional hearing characterized by partisan disagreements, with Republicans accusing the museum of radical activism and Democrats denouncing the administration's actions as a politically motivated witch hunt.

Anthea Hartig, who has served as director since 2019, has emphasized linking scholarship with activism. In lectures delivered in November 2020 and February 2025, she framed historical study as a tool of social justice and advocated for connecting research with advocacy. The museum has adopted practices such as “land acknowledgments,” which recognize the United States’ history of dispossessing Indigenous peoples, and revised its mission statement to focus on “empowering people to create a just and compassionate future” through historical exploration.

These changes have manifested in exhibits and educational programs that engage with contemporary social issues. The museum’s 2021 “Interpretive Plan” outlines a focus on themes like race, identity, gender, sexuality, environmental change, immigration, and economic inequality, examining history through the lens of social movements and collective change. Critics argue this approach overlooks significant dimensions of American history, including the roles of political leaders, institutions, and foundational questions about governance and conflict.

The Domestic Policy Council’s report also highlights that since Hartig’s appointment, Smithsonian staff have been engaged in discussions around a “Museums as a Site for Social Action Tool Kit.” This plan critiques dominant Western ideals and addresses topics such as white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy, colonization, and structural racism. The museum’s educational programs, led by Orlando Serrano Jr., have similarly stirred debate due to their embrace of concepts like “re-Maorification” and “re-indigenisation,” which advocate for returning land and power to Indigenous peoples. Serrano has expressed support for “transformative justice,” aiming to abolish institutions such as the police, prisons, and immigration enforcement, ideas that have reportedly influenced the museum’s instructional materials.

In response to the ongoing controversy, President Trump issued an executive order last week mandating the display of signs outside the National Museum of American History to inform visitors that the museum allegedly does not present an accurate account of American history. While critics characterize this move as politically motivated, it underscores deeper questions about the role of ideology within publicly funded institutions and how history is presented to the American public.

Given the divisive nature of the debate and the partisan gridlock in Congress, some advocates have called for an independent, nonpartisan commission to conduct a thorough review of the Smithsonian’s ideological stance and activities. As a national institution funded by taxpayers and intended to represent American heritage, the Smithsonian’s approach to history remains a subject of significant public and political interest.