GOP Lawmakers Accuse Smithsonian of Oppressors Focus

In a fiery congressional hearing on Tuesday, House Republicans accused the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History (NMAH) of being “infected by woke ideology” and overly focused on themes of “oppressors and the oppressed,” deepening an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and federally funded cultural institutions over how American history should be presented to the public.

The hearing, held by the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE) and chaired by Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), featured testimony from Dr. Anthea Hartig, director of the NMAH, alongside historians and policy experts. It followed the release of a 162-page report by the White House Domestic Policy Council on July 4 titled “Saving America’s Story,” which accused the Smithsonian of “institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology.”

The Core Disagreement: What Is a National History Museum For?

At the heart of the hearing lay a fundamental philosophical divide over the purpose of a national history museum. Republicans argued that the NMAH should present a patriotic, celebratory narrative emphasizing American exceptionalism and the nation’s achievements. Democrats and museum officials countered that the institution should present a comprehensive, evidence-based account that includes both triumphs and failures.

“The American story is the birth and growth of a great nation founded on powerful ideals and which we aim to fully achieve,” Burchett said in his opening remarks, as reported by NPR. “But in the museum’s current telling, history is just an ongoing power struggle between oppressors and the oppressed.”

Dr. Hartig, the first woman to lead the NMAH since her appointment in 2019, defended the museum’s approach in her opening statement: “When historians talk about reframing a traditional narrative, we do not mean erasing it. We mean adding the evidence, voices and objects that earlier tellings left out, so that more Americans can see themselves in the national story. Examining the harder chapters of our history is not the same as hostility toward America.”

Contentious Exchanges and Personal Questions

The hearing featured several sharp exchanges between Republican lawmakers and Dr. Hartig. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) questioned Hartig about the museum’s “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)” exhibition, which included a diary entry from a 13-year-old expressing a different gender than assigned at birth. Mace asked Hartig, “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?” according to ARTnews.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) pressed Hartig on whether she intended “to use a taxpayer-funded national museum to push a racial narrative that divides Americans by their skin color and guilt.” Hartig responded that “the Smithsonian is a nonpartisan institution we’re very proud of.”

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) questioned Hartig about the “Mass Action Toolkit,” a reference document Republicans alleged was used to train Smithsonian staff. Gill asked whether the museum was “promoting a white supremacy culture” and pressed Hartig on an exhibit that referenced Mickey Mouse as representing “vestiges of long-standing traditions of blackface minstrelsy.” Gill asked, “Ma’am, are you a white supremacist?” Hartig replied, “No, sir.”

Democrats Push Back

Democratic lawmakers forcefully defended the Smithsonian’s independence. Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.) delivered an impassioned speech, saying: “I’m here as a Black man who grew up in segregation … We will not let you destroy that museum, no matter how long it takes, how many battles are required, how much effort is needed. We will not allow that to happen unless you find a way to kill all of us and walk over our bodies to change history.”

Nearly in tandem with the hearing, House Democrats issued a 16-page rebuttal to the White House report, accusing the Trump administration of trying to “control and contort the historical record.” The rebuttal noted that museums “regularly rank among the top three most trusted institutions in the country, trailing only friends and family.”

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) introduced the Smithsonian Integrity and Historical Independence Act, which would bar federal officials from interfering in the institution’s independent operations. “Calling out individual leaders by name—that is not policy. That is a political witch hunt,” she said, as reported by ARTnews.

Expert Witnesses and Ideological Lines

The witness lineup reflected the partisan stakes of the debate. Alongside Hartig, Yale historian David Blight testified for the Democratic perspective, telling the committee that “triumphalist history cannot tolerate nuance, ambiguity, complexity, but they are lifeblood for real historians.” On the Republican side, Matthew Spalding of Hillsdale College argued that the museum “should present the facts of history, what actually happened as accurately as possible, and with minimal present-day bias,” while Mike Gonzalez of The Heritage Foundation called for a leadership overhaul, stating, “You do need to clean house at the Smithsonian. You have to replace the leadership.”

Broader Context: A Campaign Against Cultural Institutions

The Smithsonian hearing is part of a broader Trump administration effort to reshape how American history is presented in federally influenced cultural institutions. This includes a March 2025 executive order calling for removal of content that “portrays American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive,” as well as efforts to purge diversity, equity, and inclusion elements from federal cultural narratives.

The Smithsonian occupies a unique position: while its charter mandates independence from the federal government, approximately 62% of its funding comes from federal sources, making it vulnerable to political pressure. The institution is overseen by Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III and a Board of Regents that includes Vice President Vance and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

What’s Next

Dr. Hartig was scheduled to appear before the House Administration Committee on Wednesday for a second hearing, titled “Oversight of the Smithsonian: Radical Revisionism at the National Museum of American History.” The Smithsonian Integrity and Historical Independence Act faces an uncertain path in a divided Congress, and the broader question of how—and whether—federal funding gives the executive branch leverage over cultural content remains unresolved.

As the nation marks its 250th anniversary, the debate over who gets to tell America’s story—and how—shows no signs of abating.