WASHINGTON — August 15, 2026 — The Smithsonian Institution is facing mounting political scrutiny over how the National Museum of American History presents the nation's past, with a legal expert now calling for a sweeping leadership overhaul and arguing that the museum's current direction has become deeply disconnected from its public mission.
Cully Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News that National Museum of American History Director Anthea Hartig should have been removed following a series of contentious congressional hearings examining diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and the museum's approach to American history.
Stimson's criticism comes as Republicans in Congress and officials in the Trump administration intensify their examination of Smithsonian exhibits, mission statements and educational materials.
At the center of the dispute is a fundamental question: Should America's national museums primarily celebrate the nation's achievements, emphasize its failures and injustices, or attempt to present both without appearing to favor a particular political interpretation?
Criticism focuses on how American history is presented
The controversy surrounding Hartig intensified after a resurfaced 2025 video showed her describing history as a potential “prime tool of social justice.”
During the presentation, Hartig discussed America's racial history and the continuing impact of past injustices. She also spoke about historical work in connection with reparations, responsibility and restorative justice.
Conservative critics have seized on those comments as evidence that the museum is moving beyond documenting history and toward using historical interpretation to influence visitors' political or social views.
Stimson argued that the Smithsonian should not approach American history from what he characterized as a negative or “self-loathing” perspective.
His criticism reflects a broader conservative argument that federally supported cultural institutions should present America's accomplishments alongside its darker chapters without portraying the country primarily through oppression, discrimination or historical guilt.
Congressional hearings intensify pressure
The dispute moved from political commentary into formal congressional scrutiny during hearings this summer.
Lawmakers questioned Smithsonian officials about the content of exhibits, the institution's leadership and changes to the National Museum of American History's mission statement.
Rep. Mike Carey, R-Ohio, confronted Hartig over the museum's decision to remove the phrase “American history” from its mission statement. Carey questioned Hartig about an explanation that the change was intended to help people move beyond what was described as an “America-first mentality.”
The exchange became one of several moments that fueled Republican criticism of the museum.
Other lawmakers have questioned whether exhibits dealing with race, gender, sexuality and other controversial subjects belong in a national institution primarily devoted to preserving and explaining American history.
Critics demand leadership changes
Stimson is not alone in calling for changes at the Smithsonian.
Heritage Foundation fellow Mike Gonzalez also argued during congressional scrutiny that Smithsonian leadership has moved the institution away from its central purpose.
The criticism is part of a larger campaign by conservative lawmakers and administration officials to change how federally supported museums portray American history.
Critics say taxpayers should not be funding exhibits or educational programs that they believe promote a partisan interpretation of the country.
The White House has also criticized what it describes as ideological influence within the Smithsonian. A July report from the administration's Domestic Policy Council accused the National Museum of American History of “ideological capture” and examined exhibits, signage and leadership practices.
Supporters defend historical complexity
The Smithsonian controversy has also generated strong opposition from historians and Democrats, who argue that museums have a responsibility to present uncomfortable chapters of American history.
Critics of congressional intervention say politicians should not determine what historical subjects museums display.
During a recent congressional debate, Democratic challenger Jennifer Todd argued that lawmakers have an obligation to oversee taxpayer spending but should not dictate historical interpretation. She said those decisions should remain with professional historians, curators and museum experts.
Historians supporting the Smithsonian's approach have similarly argued that acknowledging slavery, discrimination, civil rights struggles and other painful periods does not amount to hostility toward the United States.
Instead, they say understanding difficult history is essential to understanding how the country developed.
The debate over DEI
Diversity, equity and inclusion programs have become another major source of disagreement.
Republican lawmakers have questioned whether DEI initiatives have influenced the selection of exhibits, educational programs and institutional priorities.
Supporters of those programs argue that museums should reflect the experiences of Americans from historically underrepresented communities.
Opponents counter that a museum devoted to American history should avoid turning identity politics into the organizing principle for its exhibitions.
The Smithsonian has consequently become part of a much broader national debate over whether cultural institutions should actively address contemporary social issues or maintain a more traditional focus on historical preservation and education.
Why the Smithsonian matters
The Smithsonian occupies a unique position in American public life.
Its museums attract millions of visitors, including large numbers of schoolchildren and tourists. Because of that reach, disputes over exhibits can become disputes over how future generations understand the country's history.
Conservatives argue that national museums should inspire Americans by highlighting the country's achievements, inventions, sacrifices and democratic institutions.
Their critics warn that removing or minimizing historical injustices risks creating an incomplete version of the past.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about individual displays.
It is about the broader purpose of a national museum.
Trump administration pushes for a different direction
The controversy also fits into the Trump administration's wider effort to reshape the federal government's presentation of American history.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order in 2025 directing officials to address what the administration described as inappropriate ideological portrayals of American history at Smithsonian institutions and other federal sites.
The administration has argued that national cultural institutions should emphasize American achievement and avoid what it considers partisan or divisive interpretations.
That policy has placed the Smithsonian under unprecedented political pressure and has made museum leadership a major target of conservative criticism.
Hartig remains at the center of the dispute
Hartig has become the most visible individual in the controversy because of her position at the National Museum of American History and her public comments about historical interpretation.
Critics say her statements demonstrate that the museum's leadership views history as an instrument for social and political change.
Supporters argue that her comments reflect legitimate scholarship about how history influences contemporary society.
The disagreement over her leadership is therefore unlikely to disappear simply because individual exhibits are changed.
A larger fight over America's story
The Smithsonian controversy is ultimately part of a much larger argument unfolding across the United States.
One side wants national institutions to emphasize American exceptionalism, achievement and national unity while still acknowledging past mistakes.
The other side believes that a truthful account of American history must give substantial attention to slavery, racism, inequality, discrimination and other injustices, even when those subjects make visitors uncomfortable.
Both sides claim to be defending historical truth.
The dispute is over what that truth should look like inside America's most prominent museums.
For now, congressional scrutiny and political pressure on the Smithsonian are likely to continue.
The bottom line: The Smithsonian is facing an increasingly intense battle over leadership, historical interpretation and the role of ideology in national museums. Legal expert Cully Stimson says the institution needs a major leadership overhaul and argues that its current approach presents an excessively negative view of America. Smithsonian supporters and historians counter that confronting difficult chapters of the nation's past is essential to honest historical education. The fight could ultimately determine how one of America's most influential cultural institutions tells the story of the United States to future generations.
Also Read: DFW Airport Drops Foot-Washing Plan After Abbott Pushback