SAVING AMERICA’S STORY  
How Ideological Capture at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of  
American History Erases Our Heritage  
Report by the Domestic Policy Council following President Trump’s March 27, 2026, Executive  
Order 14253 (“Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History”), and the ongoing review of the  
Smithsonian Institution  
Executive Summary  
The Smithsonian Institution is one of the Nation’s greatest civic treasures: a place where parents  
bring their children and tourists from across the country and around the world come to learn  
about America. At the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History (NMAH), visitors  
young and old should encounter the story of the United States told with honesty, seriousness, and  
pride. In particular, it should help the American people understand where America came from,  
what makes it distinctive, and why it is worth preserving.  
In making their case to Congress in 1953, Smithsonian leadership argued that one of the “main  
reasons” NMAH should be created is “[t]o place before millions who visit the Nation’s Capital  
each year a stimulating permanent exposition that commemorates our heritage of freedom and  
highlights the basic elements of our way of life.”1  
In 1955, then-Smithsonian Secretary Leon Carmichael testified to Congress that, if authorized,  
the Museum would “tell the story of American national progress” and “cement America’s  
progress for citizen and foreign visitors alike.”2 As he put it, “The museum we envision…is  
planned to instill in each citizen a deepened faith in our country’s destiny as champion of  
individual dignity and enterprise. Equally, it is conceived to instill in each foreign visitor  
admiration and respect for our ever-expanding social and technological horizons.”3 Two months  
later, based on that promise, Congress authorized the Museum’s construction and allocated $36  
million to cover the costs.4  
Then-Director of the U.S. National Museum, Remington Kellogg, noted at the Museum’s  
opening in 1964 that the new museum was intended “to awaken in citizen and foreigner alike a  
clear understanding of the inspiring story of the United States—its origins, struggles,  
development, traditions, strength.”5 One NMAH curator who worked at the Museum for nearly  
four decades before retiring in 2016 noted that the Museum’s founding goal “was more than  
simply the increase and diffusion of general knowledge”; NMAH was intended to be “proudly  
patriotic.”6  
Speaking at the Museum’s dedication ceremony in January 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson  
explained his hope and belief that the Museum’s “iconic artifacts should be used to foster  
patriotism.”7 He stated:  
I would hope that there will come to this building the children of the nation. For here is  
recorded, as William Faulkner expressed it, the agony and the sweat of the human spirit,  
the victory of freedom and genius of our country. Here, young children see, with their  
own eyes, yes, even to touch with their own hands, the ripe fruit of America’s historical  
harvest. Whitney’s cotton gin, Singer’s sewing machine, McCormick’s reaper, Edison’s  
phonograph, Bell’s telephone—they are all here, a part of this treasure-house of our  
inheritance. The more we understand the meaning of the past, the more we appreciate the  
winning of the future. If this Museum did nothing more than illuminate our heritage so  
that others could see a little better our legacy, however so small the glimpse, it would  
fulfill a noble purpose.8  
This report by the Domestic Policy Council demonstrates that NMAH fails in the basic task of  
illuminating our heritage. Our central finding is not that the Museum has simply added  
overlooked stories, corrected perceived errors, or broadened its historical scope. Rather, it is that  
Museum leadership has explicitly adopted an ideological framework that no longer treats the  
American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated, but as a political  
instrument to divide, dispirit, and discourage our citizens.  
As this report shows, confirmed in the words of Museum leadership, this ideological capture has  
moved the Museum’s mission away from straightforward historical education and scholarship  
toward an extreme political activism that seeks to transform our country.  
That shift from history to activism is clearly documented in this report. Anthea Hartig, NMAH’s  
director since 2019, has explicitly stated that she sees history as a “prime tool of social justice”9  
and one of her roles as connecting “research and scholarship to activism and advocacy.”10 Hartig  
has also stated that “we work to reframe the traditional celebratory narrative of U.S. history for  
visitors.”11 She claims to have had a personal head start “propped up as I was and I am by the  
cushions of whiteness and the pillows of the bourgeoisie.”12 Hartig believes the museum  
profession has “to figure out” how “we’re going to” “problematize” the “250th Anniversary of  
the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 2026,”13 that “loving America is very  
complicated,”14 and that objects in the Museum’s collection should be used to move attention  
away from an “Anglo-centric” focus on the American Founding.15 These are not the words of an  
objective historian, but rather those of an activist advancing an ideological agenda contradictory  
to the Museum’s founding purpose of fostering patriotism.  
At the heart of our concern is a simple question: what should a national museum of American  
history do? Our conviction—like that of Secretary Carmichael, Director Kellogg, and President  
Johnson—is that such a museum should tell the American story clearly and fairly. It should  
explain the rise of the original thirteen colonies, the struggle for independence, the principles of  
the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and the role these documents have  
played in securing Americans’ most basic freedoms. It should document and share the  
achievements and failures of the Nation and the extraordinary men and women of every color  
and creed who shaped its course. It should tell the truth, including of the Nation’s mistakes and  
injustices, but it should do so within a coherent account of a people striving, often imperfectly  
but more often nobly, to live up to our founding principles of liberty and equality under a  
republican form of government. It should especially teach the history of an American nation that  
is worthy of our affections and worth passing along to future generations.  
1
Any proper telling of American history should—as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  
noted—explain that “the goal of America is freedom” and bring “our nation back to those great  
wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the  
Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”16  
According to the findings from our monthslong investigation, that is no longer what visitors  
encounter. Instead, the Museum confronts visitors with materials intended to undermine faith in  
American institutions and the longstanding shared ideals of the American people.  
As this report shows, the Museum purposely presents America as a problematic country  
irredeemably conceived, founded by deeply flawed men, and still operating today as an  
instrument of systemic racism and oppression. In the Museum’s current telling, the country is,  
above all, defined by white supremacy, slavery, conquest, exclusion, hierarchy, racism,  
xenophobia, misogyny, and systemic injustice.  
The report identifies a broad pattern: the Founders are minimized, if not entirely excluded;  
traditional patriotic narratives are treated with suspicion, if not outright contempt; and the basic  
symbols and stories that once helped unify Americans are presented not as reasons for gratitude  
and inspiration, but as objects to be inherently questioned, dismantled, “problematized,”17 and  
reinterpreted to achieve ideological ends.  
To the extent that there is a story told at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American  
History, it is not one of “the victory of freedom and genius of our country” but one of regret,  
tragedy, and shame.  
Key Findings  
1. NMAH Fails to Substantively Present America’s Founders and Founding  
One of the most significant findings in this report concerns what is missing. It notes that a visitor  
to the Museum today will find no major exhibit dedicated to America’s Founding era, George  
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, other Founding Fathers, the Continental Congress, the Pilgrims,  
the Puritans, or major moments of the American Revolution, such as Washington’s crossing of  
the Delaware. Instead, visitors will find Founders, such as Benjamin Franklin, introduced chiefly  
through their connection to slavery while their decisive roles in building the Republic and their  
anti-slavery efforts are minimized or ignored.18 George Washington and Abraham Lincoln  
appear in didactics that say next to nothing about who they are, let alone why they matter.19 The  
Pledge of Allegiance is treated as a tool for instilling nationalism without serious engagement  
with its rich meaning.20 And the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution are quoted  
selectively in ways that mute their claims about equality, ordered liberty, natural rights, and the  
divine source of those inalienable rights.21 Museum materials repeatedly suggest that Christianity  
functioned principally as an instrument of conquest, exclusion, or cultural erasure, while the  
constructive role of Christian belief and Christian institutions in shaping the Nation and its  
freedoms receives scant, if any, attention.22 White, male, and Christian Americans are regularly  
denigrated as the alleged embodiment of oppressive power structures.23 Exhibits frame the  
2
Pilgrims mainly as colonial oppressors,24 Thanksgiving as a “National Day of Mourning,”25 and  
the European settlement of the continent chiefly as a great “unsettling.”26  
2. NMAH Has “Problematized” the 250th Anniversary of America’s Founding  
At a time when the Nation is marking the 250th anniversary of its Founding, the report shows that  
these omissions and inversions are not accidental. It documents how Museum leadership has  
openly stated that the 250th anniversary should be “problematized”27—invoking a popular term-  
of-art to “Critical Social Justice” theorists that refers to the process of highlighting alleged  
“oppressions” within a given subject to “deconstruct,” disqualify, and discredit the prevailing  
narrative on that subject.28 NMAH’s goal of “problematizing” America’s Founding explains why  
Museum leadership has also stated that the alleged “gaps” surrounding the Declaration should be  
emphasized29 and that American history should be reframed away from an “America First  
mentality”30 and an “Anglo-centric” focus on the American Founding.31 It also explains why the  
Museum’s special In Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness programming for America’s 250th  
anniversary fails to actually celebrate America’s Founders or Founding, and why Independence  
Day itself went unmarked by any special programming at NMAH in 2025 and 2026, despite the  
Museum being open.32 Taken together, these choices reinforce the conclusion that the Museum is  
not merely neglecting America’s central story. It is intentionally withholding and subverting it.  
3. NMAH Removed “American History” from Its Mission Statement to “Get Out of the  
‘America First’ Mentality”  
The report places special emphasis on the Museum’s change in its mission statement under  
current leadership, which replaced the phrases “infinite richness” and “American history” with  
language about empowering people to create “a more just and compassionate future” by  
exploring “the complexity of our past.”33 In the words of Director Hartig, this was done in order  
to “get out of the ‘America First’ mentality” when telling history.34  
4. NMAH Has Abandoned Historical Scholarship for Political Activism  
The report demonstrates that the Museum has shifted from scholarship to activism, pointing to  
Museum leadership’s own public statements tying “research and scholarship to activism and  
advocacy,”35 dismantling inherited narratives,36 using history as a “prime tool of social justice,”37  
calling for American history to be “reframed,”38 and describing museum work in terms of  
“reparations,”39 “restorative history,”40 “systemic intervention,”41 “decolonization,”42 and “social  
justice.”43  
NMAH’s Activist “Interpretive Plan”  
The report notes that the Museum’s Interpretive Plan directs staff to, “whatever the topic,” tie  
exhibits back to a set of seven “core issues of our time”—specifically, race/identity,  
gender/sexuality, climate change, immigration/migrations, economic inequality, technological  
change, and nationalism/globalism—as part of its “commitment to relevance.”44 The result is that  
visitors encounter the same ideological storyline over and over again, whether the subject is  
democracy, entertainment, immigration, childhood, women’s labor, sports, or early American  
3
settlement. The complaint is not that these subjects should never be discussed, but that they are  
increasingly presented through one dominant worldview—one that assumes America’s  
institutions are chiefly instruments of oppression and that the Museum’s duty is to provoke  
visitors into activist forms of political resistance to that alleged oppression.  
NMAH’s Anti-White Activism  
The report also describes a longstanding staff reading group devoted to “Museums as a Site for  
Social Action Toolkit,” a framework that explicitly treats museums as engines for anti-  
oppression activism, frames objectivity, individualism, a sense of urgency, and “worship of the  
written word” as oppressive character traits of “whiteness” and “white supremacy culture,” and  
calls for institutional anti-white transformation rather than neutral stewardship.45 It reveals how  
Smithsonian and Museum leadership have elevated individuals who view the current portrayal of  
American history as too “white” to positions of educational leadership, in addition to creating  
special Smithsonian-wide hiring practices and programming for every major demographic—  
including “Non-US Residents” and “Non-English Speakers”—except whites, Christians, males,  
and Americans.46  
NMAH’s Illegal Alien Activism  
The report reveals how the Museum’s Center for Restorative History cast illegal alien political  
activism in heroic terms,47 partnered with and interviewed deported illegal aliens,48 and designed  
official materials that included signs advocating for the abolition of the “287g” program, which  
allows local law enforcement to partner with federal law enforcement to identify and deport  
criminal illegal aliens.49  
NMAH’s Transgender Activism  
The report also catalogs how moral and biological truths established in reason, faith, and  
tradition are being set aside in favor of ideological, anti-scientific claims. It cites examples in  
which Museum exhibits and educational materials present gender as fluid, treat biological males  
as girls or women, and fold contemporary advocacy for transgenderism into the Museum’s  
treatment of female childhood development, women’s history, and women’s sports.50 The report  
notes that some of this material is situated in youth-facing exhibits and accompanied by sexually  
explicit or sexually suggestive content that many parents would find deeply inappropriate for  
children, who are frequent visitors and a target audience of the Museum.51  
5. The Smithsonian Has Not Met Its Obligations to the American People  
Underlying all of this is a larger institutional concern. The Smithsonian is not just another private  
cultural nonprofit. It is a federally connected trust instrumentality of the United States, overseen  
by a Board of Regents currently led by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and  
supported heavily by taxpayer funding to the tune of over one billion dollars per year. That  
means the public has a right to expect that it will operate as a faithful steward of the Nation’s  
historic and cultural heritage, not as a vehicle for ideological campaigns.  
4
Conclusion: Ideological Capture at the Museum  
We must be committed to restoring truth and sanity in how American history is presented and  
taught. President Trump’s Executive Order of March 2025 notes that the Smithsonian’s effort “to  
rewrite history deepens societal divides and fosters a sense of national shame, disregarding the  
progress America has made and the ideals that continue to inspire millions around the globe.”52  
As a result, to restore the truth of America’s story as it regards the Smithsonian Institution, EO  
14253 directs the Vice President (as Regent of the Smithsonian) to work with the Assistant to the  
President for Domestic Policy “to remove improper ideology from such properties, and shall  
recommend to the President any additional actions necessary to fully effectuate such policies”  
and with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to “prohibit expenditure on  
exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or  
promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.”53  
Rather than part of a national trust for the diffusion of knowledge, dedicated to explaining the  
“infinite richness and complexity of American history,”54 the National Museum of American  
History has become an instrument—a “prime tool,” as Director Hartig has put it—for a radical,  
activist cohort dedicated to reframing the American story to serve its ideological ends.55  
In both theory and practice, NMAH is a clear and institutionalized example of intersectional  
critical theory—an intellectual framework rooted in Marxism that seeks to radically transform  
society by revealing and challenging alleged “overlapping systems of oppression”—applied to  
American history. It fails “to provide America’s young people access to what is genuinely  
inspiring and unifying in our history, as well as to the lessons imparted by the American  
experience of overcoming great national challenges”—stories and lessons that make “possible  
the informed and honest patriotism that is essential for a successful republic.”56 Its message does  
not seek to instill an “American education grounded in the principles of our founding that is  
accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling,” but rather seeks to teach disdain and inspire  
disgust of our great country.57  
Today, the Museum fails to “place before millions who visit the Nation’s Capital each year a  
stimulating permanent exposition that commemorates our heritage of freedom and highlights the  
basic elements of our way of life.”58 It has strayed far from Secretary Carmichael’s original  
vision of a place that “instill[s] in each citizen a deepened faith in our country’s destiny as  
champion of individual dignity and enterprise” and “in each foreign visitor admiration and  
respect for our ever-expanding social and technological horizons.”59 It has fallen far short of  
Director Kellogg’s hope that it would “awaken in citizen and foreigner alike a clear  
understanding of the inspiring story of the United States—its origins, struggles, development,  
traditions, strength.”60 And it has failed to live up to President Johnson’s dream that it would  
record “as William Faulkner expressed it, the agony and the sweat of the human spirit, the  
victory of freedom and genius of our country” and “the ripe fruit of America’s historical harvest”  
for the children of the Nation.61 In short, NMAH has failed to maintain the “treasure-house of  
our inheritance” because it no longer seeks to “illuminate our heritage.”62  
As our nation celebrates its 250th anniversary, NMAH has refused to celebrate the Nation and its  
history. It has not created any exhibit dedicated to presenting a general narrative of American  
5
history or telling the story of any of our Founding Fathers, the Second Continental Congress, the  
Declaration of Independence, the American Revolutionary War, or the achievement of  
independence and the establishment of the constitutional rule of law—even in the 250th  
anniversary of the first of those pivotal events.  
The serious concerns raised in this report are not about a few exhibits or a few controversial  
labels. They concern whether America’s premier history museum still presents America as a  
coherent nation and heritage worth teaching with gratitude and honesty. The Museum can  
broaden the story without dissolving the story. It can and should acknowledge slavery, injustice,  
mistreatment of Native peoples, and other grave wrongs without encouraging citizens to view  
their country mainly through suspicion, resentment, and division. But that is not what the  
National Museum of American History is doing. As it stands today, it would benefit most  
Americans, especially parents bringing their children for a tour, if the Smithsonian’s flagship  
history museum had a label at every entrance that reads: “Warning: the exhibits in this museum  
were prepared by people who don’t want you to love your country.”  
The findings of this report matter beyond the museum world. Not all Americans follow academic  
theories or curatorial fashions, but they do understand when a revered public institution has  
traded settled truths and basic history for political activism and division. They do notice when  
the heroes, principles, and events that formed the country are pushed to the margins. They notice  
when their children are introduced to inappropriate sexual and ideological content under the  
guise of civic education. And they object when their children and grandchildren are being  
indoctrinated to regard their country primarily as a source of oppression and unresolved  
grievance.  
The report concludes that the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Museum of American  
History in particular, under its current leadership and current interpretive ideology, cannot be  
trusted to tell America’s story honestly and in a way that is inspiring, unifying, and worthy of our  
great republic. By the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian  
leadership, NMAH has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that  
is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and  
love.  
6
Table of Contents  
Chapter I.  
Introduction............................................................................................................ 9  
1.  
2.  
The Smithsonian’s Fiduciary Responsibilities.................................................................... 9  
The National Museum of American History’s Responsibility to Tell the American Story  
10  
3.  
Key Findings..................................................................................................................... 11  
Chapter II. The National Museum of American History and Its Radical Ideology...................... 20  
1.  
2.  
3.  
4.  
NMAH’s Self-Proclaimed Activist Leadership................................................................ 21  
NMAH’s New Mission of Social and Political Activism................................................. 21  
NMAH’s Attempt to Push Museum Visitors Away from an “America First Mentality” 22  
NMAH’s Center for Restorative History.......................................................................... 25  
Chapter III. Examples of Ideological Purpose at the National Museum of American History .... 29  
1. NMAH’s Extensive Partnerships with, and Advocacy for Extending Citizenship to,  
Illegal Aliens............................................................................................................................. 29  
2. NMAH’s Partnership with Illegal Alien Activists Who Campaigned to Oust a North  
Carolina Sheriff from Office..................................................................................................... 30  
3. NMAH’s Efforts to Indoctrinate Middle and High School Students into Opposing the  
Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law ............................................................................... 32  
4.  
5.  
NMAH Created a Video Highlighting Protestors Demanding to “Abolish ICE” ............ 33  
The Smithsonian’s Belief that America Is Unjust and Therefore Its Story Must Be  
Challenged ................................................................................................................................ 37  
6. NMAH’s Role in the Smithsonian’s “Pan-Institutional” Effort to Reframe American  
History “Through the Lens of Migration and Immigration” .................................................... 38  
7.  
8.  
NMAH’s Claim That “There Is No Single American Culture, Language, or Narrative” 40  
NMAH’s Attempt to Manipulate Language to Downplay the Illegality of Illegal  
Immigration............................................................................................................................... 41  
9.  
NMAH’s Efforts to Turn American High Schools into Law Clinics for Illegal Aliens... 42  
NMAH’s Pro-Illegal Alien Activism Shaped a Flagship Exhibit About America....... 47  
NMAH’s Head of PreK-12 Learning Helped Develop Its “Educational” Curriculum  
10.  
11.  
Advocating for Citizenship for Illegal Aliens........................................................................... 50  
12.  
13.  
NMAH’s Head of PreK-12 Learning’s Disdain for America’s “System of Law” ....... 52  
NMAH’s Head of PreK-12 Learning Criticized Western Civilization Because it  
“Privileges Order” and White People; Wants to Give U.S. Land Back to Indigenous Peoples53  
14. NMAH Promoted Materials from the Anti-White Southern Poverty Law Center in Its  
“Educational” Curriculum and Programming for High School Students................................. 54  
15. How the Smithsonian Works to Indoctrinate Thousands of American Teachers......... 55  
7
16.  
NMAH’s Head of PreK-12 Learning Warned of the “Danger of A Single Story in  
Storytelling Today” that Focuses on White People.................................................................. 56  
17. NMAH’s Head of PreK-12 Learning Believes That White People Have an “Empathy  
Gap” Preventing Them from Wanting to “See Stories That Center Black People”................. 56  
18.  
19.  
20.  
NMAH’s Pro-Illegal Alien Activism and Its Role Informing Other Major Exhibits... 58  
NMAH’s Efforts to Convince America’s Children to Defy All Authority .................. 63  
NMAH’s Involvement in the Smithsonian’s “Reckoning with Our Racial Past”  
Initiative.................................................................................................................................... 64  
21. NMAH Implemented an Anti-Racist “Toolkit” for Staff to “Transform” Museums into  
Anti-White Institutions ............................................................................................................. 64  
22.  
23.  
24.  
More Examples of NMAH’s Progressive Reframing of American History................. 78  
NMAH’s Efforts to Reject Biological Reality and Support Anti-Woman Activism.... 81  
NMAH’s Efforts to Upend “Entrenched Gender Binaries” and Allow Men in Women’s  
Sports 85  
25.  
26.  
27.  
28.  
NMAH’s Decision to Put Inappropriate Material in Front of Children........................ 89  
NMAH’s Decision to Put Sexually Suggestive Material in Front of Children............. 90  
NMAH’s Pro-Abortion Activism ................................................................................. 91  
NMAH’s Efforts to Turn America’s Youth into Anti-Gun Activists........................... 92  
Chapter IV. How the National Museum of American History Undermines American History... 96  
1.  
2.  
3.  
4.  
5.  
NMAH and the Smithsonian’s Rejection of a Coherent National Narrative.................... 96  
NMAH and the Smithsonian’s Political Activism by Omission ...................................... 99  
NMAH’s Slander of America’s Founders ...................................................................... 102  
NMAH’s Repeated Claim that America Rests on Stolen Land...................................... 105  
NMAH’s Slander of America and Reframing of its “Traditional Celebratory Narrative”  
105  
6.  
7.  
America’s Flagship Museum Insists the Country Hasn’t Changed Since 1957............. 112  
The Smithsonian and NMAH Are Not Celebrating America’s Founders or Founding on  
America’s 250th Anniversary.................................................................................................. 114  
8.  
NMAH No Longer Holds Patriotic Ceremonies Celebrating America’s Flag ............... 124  
NMAH No Longer Celebrates America’s Independence Day (July 4th)........................ 125  
The Smithsonian’s Determination to Stage an Intervention with the American People  
9.  
10.  
and Focus on America’s Flaws During Our 250th Anniversary.............................................. 126  
11.  
The Smithsonian Proudly Highlighted an Employee’s Talk on a Future Where  
“America Exists in Hindsight” in Its 2023 DEI Initiatives Report......................................... 127  
Chapter V. Conclusion: Ideological Capture at the Museum ..................................................... 128  
8
Chapter I. Introduction  
1. The Smithsonian’s Fiduciary Responsibilities  
The Smithsonian Institution was created by an act of Congress on August 10, 1846, to carry out  
the terms of the will of British scientist James Smithson (1765-1829), who in 1826 bequeathed  
his entire estate to the United States “to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian  
Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.”'63  
Today, the Smithsonian Institution is the world’s largest museum and research complex and  
includes twenty-one museums and galleries, the National Zoo, and research facilities in several  
states. The Smithsonian Institution is not a private institution or an independent trust but is a  
“trust instrumentality of the United States” by which it carries out the institutional mission of the  
trust on behalf of the United States Government.64  
The charter of the Smithsonian Institution is codified in federal law, and the Federal Government  
oversees the Institution through a Board of Regents heavily controlled by Congress, which  
appoints and approves fifteen of its seventeen members.65 The Board’s membership consists of  
the Chief Justice of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, three members of  
the Senate appointed by the Vice President, three members of the House of Representatives  
appointed by the Speaker of the House, and nine citizen members appointed by a Joint  
Resolution of Congress. The head of the Smithsonian is the Secretary, who is appointed by the  
Board of Regents. The Smithsonian executes no direct government program or policy beyond the  
regulation of its buildings and property of the United States that has been assigned to it.  
The Smithsonian makes an annual budget request to Congress, and the Smithsonian receives an  
annual budget appropriation that over the past two decades amounts to about two-thirds of its  
annual expenditures. This amounted to $1,080,500,000 in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2026.  
Some of these expenditures pay for the employment of staff, and those staff are considered  
federal employees; when the government shuts down, so does the Smithsonian Institution. The  
Smithsonian also has separate funding streams from proceeds received through grants, gifts,  
bequests, commercial revenue-generating activities, and investments, which the Smithsonian  
refers to as “trust funds.” Those resources also fund some activities, including employment of  
nonfederal, “trust employees.” All moneys “recovered by and accruing to” the Smithsonian are  
paid into the Treasury of the United States, where they are accredited to a Smithsonian account.  
In addition to annual budget submissions and various periodic reports to Congress, the  
Smithsonian files an accounting of resources as a tax-exempt educational organization under  
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.  
While the Smithsonian is not an “agency” within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure  
Act or the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and not a “federal agency” as the term is used in the  
Privacy Act or the Freedom of Information Act, the Attorney General concluded in 1988 that the  
Smithsonian is an “independent establishment in the executive branch” and is therefore an  
“executive agency” for purposes of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act.66 The  
Attorney General also concluded in 1997 that the Smithsonian is “so closely connected to the  
9
Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities.”67 Nevertheless, the  
Smithsonian ultimately reports to its Board and to Congress, is organizationally separate from  
the executive branch, and is not subject to many laws designed strictly for executive branch  
agencies.68 This is why, “[u]nlike most federal agencies, the Smithsonian is authorized to accept  
gifts and to generate revenue outside of the federal appropriations process.”69  
In light of its federal status and the fact that it receives over one billion dollars in federal funding  
from the American taxpayer every year, the President has a duty and obligation to seek reforms  
of the Smithsonian, and to urge the Chief Justice of the United States, as the Chancellor of the  
Smithsonian, as well as the Vice President, as a Regent of the Smithsonian and as President of  
the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, to take appropriate action to restore the integrity of the  
National Museum of American History.  
On March 27, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14253, “Restoring Truth and  
Sanity to American History,” which found that “Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed  
a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a  
distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth” and reconstructing “our Nation’s  
unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness” as “inherently  
racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.”70  
2. The National Museum of American History’s Responsibility to Tell the American Story  
The Smithsonian Institution in general, and the National Museum of American History in  
particular, should be “a symbol of inspiration and American greatness—igniting the imagination  
of young minds, honoring the richness of American history and innovation, and instilling pride in  
the hearts of all Americans.”71 As NMAH noted in its 2018 Master Plan, a national museum of  
American history should explore, celebrate, and tell the American national story.72  
That story should be a basic consensus view that is not ideological or politicized, but presents the  
facts of history—what actually happened—as accurately as possible with minimal present-day  
bias.73 It should explain the circumstances and conditions that gave rise to thirteen self-governing  
colonies in North America, how those colonies united to oppose British misrule, and came to  
declare their independence and fight a war before forming a new nation. It should tell the story of  
how the Founders, inspired largely by the Ancient Greek democracies and republican-era Rome,  
undertook to create a new form of government that would reflect the will of the people,  
constrained by civic virtue, the separation of powers, and checks and balances, and supported by  
religion and morality. It should focus on what makes America distinctive—the ideas that define  
the Nation, the key individuals that have shaped its course, and the great accomplishments and  
progress America has made. It should explain the Nation’s guiding principles and institutional  
form in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as well as America’s rise,  
expansion, and growth as a continental nation.  
It should tell the whole story of a nation, including the good and the bad, so Museum visitors can  
understand the development that led our nation to where it is today. In doing so, it should tell a  
story of a people driven to overcome injustice and live up to its promise—a story of imperfection  
but also extraordinary accomplishment, of tragedies but also great triumphs, and hardship but  
10  
also noble heroism. In short, it should focus on “Americanism—the people, principles, and  
progress that define our nation.”74  
It should tell the story of how the colonies inherited slavery from both global and European  
slaving practices, but also how the words, actions, and ideas of America’s Founders helped spark  
a worldwide movement that ultimately ended slavery. It should tell the story of how at least eight  
American colonies passed or attempted to pass laws to either tax or severely limit the  
importation of slaves before the Revolutionary War, only to be forced by the British Crown to  
continue it. It should tell the story of how 750,000 Americans died in the Civil War. It should tell  
the story of how Americans came to reject Jim Crow and segregation, backing a colorblind  
standard derived from America’s founding documents. In short, it should tell the story of the  
birth of America and how the United States, because of the principles enshrined in the  
Declaration of Independence and upheld in the Constitution, has done more to advance and  
secure fundamental rights than any other nation in the world.  
It should also tell of the enormous technological, scientific, and economic progress America has  
bequeathed to the world, from the lightning rod, to the telephone, to the light bulb, to the  
assembly-line-produced car, the airplane, the moon landing, the cell phone, the personal  
computer, the internet, and much more.  
It should tell the story of America’s contributions to global freedom, from saving Europe from  
multiple tyrannies, to illustrating the virtues of a market economy and a free people—leading  
nations around the world to continue to attempt to emulate the United States and enjoy a  
comparably high standard of living.  
Walking through the Museum today, you will find no exhibits dedicated to presenting a general  
narrative of American history or telling the story of any of our Founding Fathers, the Second  
Continental Congress, the Mayflower, the Pilgrims, the Puritans, or Washington crossing the  
Delaware. In early 2026, seventy-five percent of the advertising boards placed on sidewalks  
around the museum showcased exhibits dedicated to peoples and cultural traditions foreign to the  
United States.75  
3. Key Findings  
Our ongoing review of the Smithsonian has revealed numerous areas that demonstrate how  
current Museum leadership has failed to tell America’s story and adheres to a radical, activist  
ideology:  
1.  
The leadership of the Smithsonian’s NMAH has made it a stated goal to “reframe the  
traditional celebratory narrative of U.S. history” (pg. 21) and “transform[] the national  
historical narrative” (pg. 27) away from America’s Founding and the Founders and towards  
a narrative of a deeply flawed creation of the country and an ongoing oppression of peoples  
by systemically racist governing institutions.  
The Smithsonian is approaching its task of reframing American history in several ways,  
including by:  
11  
a. Failing to dedicate a single (new or current) exhibit on display at NMAH to  
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, other Founders, or pivotal events of the  
American Revolution, including Washington’s crossing of the Delaware, during  
the 250th anniversary of these events (pg. 11). Instead, in two of its major exhibits,  
the Museum only includes the following minor acknowledgements:  
i. A didactic in NMAH’s American Democracy exhibit entitled “Abraham  
Lincoln in the Classroom,” which provides no information about the  
accomplishments of the two great American heroes it cites—Lincoln and  
Washington—noting only that both were presidents and that Americans  
have used images of them in an attempt to “instill patriotic values and  
reinforce the idea of a shared national heritage” (pg. 100);  
ii. A didactic in American Democracy entitled, “What are the Rights and  
Responsibilities of Citizens?” which fails to mention the Founders by  
name or even refer to them by their traditional collective title (“Founders”  
or “Founding Fathers”), simply highlighting that a “founding generation of  
American political leaders asserted that the independent nation would be  
based on the ideal that its citizens had the right to ‘Life, Liberty, and the  
Pursuit of Happiness,’ and that the government under the Constitution was  
designed to ‘promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of  
Liberty’”—failing to include the Preamble’s essential context proving that  
our Founders truly did believe that there are “self-evident,” objective  
truths about human beings, that one of those truths is that “all men are  
created equal,” and that those universal rights of “Life, Liberty and the  
pursuit of Happiness” are endowed by our Creator, not men (pgs. 100-  
101); and  
iii. One reference to Benjamin Franklin in the entirety of NMAH’s Many  
Voices, One Nation exhibit, not as one of our most important Founding  
Fathers, but simply as a “Philadelphian,” an alleged racist, and someone  
who allegedly had an “ambivalent view” of immigrants and “worried that  
they introduced an ‘alien’ element to the colony” (pg. 48).  
b. Highlighting that some Founders, like Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin  
Franklin, owned slaves while downplaying or completely excluding information  
about their abolitionist efforts (or their pivotal roles in American history) in  
NMAH exhibits—including:  
i. A didactic about the Broadway musical Hamilton in NMAH’s  
Entertainment Nation exhibit that simply called Alexander Hamilton an  
“influential and flawed founding father” likely, in part, because he owned  
slaves while providing no information about his key roles in America’s  
Founding and early development. It failed to mention that he was a vocal  
critic of slavery and helped found the anti-slavery New York  
12  
Manumission Society in 1785, which worked to end the slave trade,  
supported and lobbied for the “ultimate extermination” of slavery,  
“connected black people with resources such as legal representation,  
helped protect them from kidnapping from slave dealers, put on anti-  
slavery lectures and readings,” and founded seven African Free Schools  
that “educat[ed] more than 1,400 students by the time they started  
becoming part of the New York City public school system in the 1830s”  
(pg. 102); and  
ii. An exhibit dedicated to “the women, indentured servants, and enslaved  
people” whose “labor enabled” Benjamin Franklin’s electrical research  
that baselessly asked museum visitors to ponder whether Franklin’s  
scientific experiments, including those related to “electric shocks,” ever  
involved “an indentured servant or an enslaved person,” despite admitting  
that there is no evidence that they did (pg. 103).  
c. Stating that America’s 250th anniversary should be “problematize[d]” and the  
“gaps” surrounding the Declaration of Independence magnified (pg. 126);  
d. Failing to celebrate America’s Founders in its special In Pursuit of Life, Liberty,  
and Happiness programming allegedly “celebrating” the 250th anniversary of  
America’s Founding (pg. 114);  
e. Failing to hold any Independence Day programming on July 4, 2025, despite the  
museum being open, and failing to schedule or hold any special Independence  
Day events celebrating America’s 250th anniversary on July 4, 2026 (pgs. 125-  
126);  
f. No longer holding patriotic Star-Spangled Banner flag-folding ceremonies  
celebrating America’s flag, or any other special programming, to celebrate Flag  
Day (pgs. 124-125);  
g. Stating that “loving America is very complicated” (pg. 38) and showcasing the  
statement of a Smithsonian employee who stated that it will be nice when the U.S.  
“exists in hindsight” in its 2023 annual DEI report (pg. 127);  
h. Directing NMAH staff to remove the phrases “infinite richness” and “American  
history” from the mission statement of the National Museum of American  
History—rewriting it to only focus on “the complexity of our past” (pgs. 22, 24);  
i. Working to “get out of the ‘America First’ mentality” and focus on “the entirety  
of the Americas, not just our part of North America,” which it views as a “big  
challenge, especially going into 2026, which will be the 250th anniversary of the  
signing of the Declaration of Independence” (pg. 22);  
13  
j. Stating that a particular object in NMAH’s collections is a “favorite thing”  
because the object powerfully served to reframe history away from an “Anglo-  
centric narrative” that would focus the world’s attention on the American  
Revolution and “especially…the United States’ founding” (pg. 23);  
k. Framing America’s Founding in an exhibit as a fundamentally oppressive and  
genocidal effort to take Native Americans’ land and oppress their culture and  
peoples (pg. 108-110);  
l. Framing Christopher Columbus’s landing and exploration of the New World as a  
murderous genocide and “unsettling” of the continent to be lamented, not  
celebrated, including:  
i. Calling Christopher Columbus a “murderer,” “slaver,” “killer,” and  
“thief,” urging the abolition of Columbus Day (pg. 104); and  
ii. Creating NMAH’s Many Voices, One Nation exhibit, which portrays the  
European settling of America as a “profound unsettling of the continent”  
with a section entitled “Unsettling the Continent, 1492-1776” that states  
that “Our world today grows out of that unsettling history” (pg. 104).  
m. Creating an Upending 1620 exhibit that explicitly reframes the Christian Pilgrims  
as colonizers, not “founders of the U.S. nation,” seeks to “demonstrate that not  
every passenger aboard the Mayflower was fleeing religious persecution,”  
reframes Thanksgiving as a “National Day of Mourning,” and “urges audiences to  
reexamine these stories” and challenge their “preconceptions” because Plymouth  
“is cemented in many minds as the birthplace of the United States and central to  
its founding events,” and therefore contradicts the narrative of America that  
NMAH seeks to tell (pgs. 109-110);  
n. Insisting that the Smithsonian “legitimize” and “support the New York Times’  
1619 Project” which, “in the words of the Times, set out to ‘reframe the country’s  
history, understanding 1619 as our true founding’” (pg. 104);  
o. Claiming that America is not an enormous force for good but is rather an  
oppressive, imperialist nation that was “founded on the backs of African  
and…Indian slavery and genocide” (pg. 104), built on stolen land (pg. 105), and  
is irredeemably infected with “systemic racism” (pgs. 55, 113);  
p. Endorsing the American Association for State and Local History’s Reframing  
History project, which notes that “historical narratives that center white men as  
the ‘neutral,’ depoliticized American history that should be taught in schools (for  
example, learning about the Founding Fathers)” are “a way of perpetuating  
dominant groups’ power” and “reinforce white supremacist logic,” with NMAH’s  
Director calling the project’s final report a “blueprint for us to expand the power  
of our own engagement to then ignite civic engagement” (pgs. 106-107);  
14  
q. Including in NMAH’s American Democracy exhibit a wall featuring large  
lettering with the words “PRIVILEGE,” “SLAVERY,” and “RIGHTS OF  
WOMAN” while terms like “FREE PRESS,” “CITIZENSHIP,” and “RIGHTS  
OF MAN” are much smaller, and a didactic asking visitors “if there were to be  
common beliefs and a national narrative that expressed the values of the nation,  
what should be included?” without providing an answer (pg. 97).  
2.  
The Smithsonian’s NMAH leadership has made it a stated goal to make history “a prime  
tool of social justice” (pgs. 21-22), “be an agent of social change” (pgs. 64, 70), and connect  
“research and scholarship to activism and advocacy” (pg. 21), including by:  
a. Creating an Interpretive Plan whose prime directive is to, “whatever the topic,” tie  
everything to “the core issues of our time,” namely, “race and identity,” “gender  
and sexuality,” “environmental change,” “immigration and migrations,”  
“economic inequality,” “technological change,” and “nationalism and globalism,”  
stating that “To do anything less is to shirk our commitment to relevance” (pg. 80,  
cleaned up);  
b. Launching a Center for Restorative History to “encourage systemic change”  
within the Smithsonian for the purpose of “transforming the national historical  
narrative, restructuring institutional priorities, and privileging knowledge  
production in the communities that have been silenced or overlooked by museums  
and other educational institutions,” which include “BIPOC people (Black,  
Indigenous, and other people of color); LGBTQ+ people (who identify as lesbian,  
gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and more),” and “people who have intersecting  
identities within these communities”—that is, “privileging,” “partnering with,”  
and “spotlight[ing] the people and stories” of virtually every group but straight,  
white Americans (pg. 27);  
c. Commissioning the drafting of a museum-wide “Decolonization/Restorative  
History Plan” (pgs. 25-27);  
d. Holding regular meetings “for NMAH staff members to meet, discuss and read”  
the “Museums as a Site for Social Action” Toolkit, a 200+ page, three-year  
roadmap (co-authored by half a dozen current/former Smithsonian employees) on  
how to “truly transform the museum space” that “privileges dominant Western  
ideals of race, class, and gender” and is linked “with white supremacy, hetero-  
patriarchy, abuse of labor, colonization, imperialist theft of art and artifacts,  
destruction or absencing of alternative ways of interpreting or representing art and  
artifacts, structural racism and other oppressions” (pgs. 64-65);  
e. Utilizing its National Youth Summits on issues ranging from “Teen Resistance to  
Racism, and Gender Equity” to “Elections and Politics” to invite Democratic  
Party operatives to speak about, “How can young people engage in political  
action and influence elections?” (pg. 56);  
15  
f. Creating exhibits and educational materials asserting that there are more than two  
genders, biological males can become “girls” and “women,” and men should be  
allowed to compete in women’s sports, including:  
i. Describing a biological male as “a girl trapped inside a boy’s body” in a  
youth-oriented exhibit (pg. 82);  
ii. Stating “girls can be assigned male at birth” in a youth-oriented exhibit  
(pg. 82);  
iii. Defining and discussing the terms “gender fluidity,” “[g]ender-fluid  
children,” “gender identity,” “gender nonconforming,” “gender  
normative,” and “gender role” in its Glossary of Terms for its Becoming  
US educational curriculum, including:  
1. Stating that “a child may feel they are a girl some days and a boy  
on others, or possibly feel that neither term describes them  
accurately” so it “is best to ask people who are gender fluid which  
pronouns they prefer” (pg. 81);  
2. Defining “gender identity” as “[o]ne’s internal, deeply held sense  
of one’s gender” that “does not [always] fit neatly into” the male or  
female categories (pg. 81);  
3. Instructing educators to “avoid” the “[o]utdated” term “Gender  
Identity Disorder” (pg. 81);  
4. Noting that “[p]eople who step out of their socially assigned  
gender roles are sometimes referred to as transgender” but that  
“[s]imply being transgender does not make someone gender non-  
conforming,” and therefore it “is best to ask gender non-  
conforming people which pronouns they prefer” (pg. 81); and  
5. Claiming that “[o]ur culture recognizes two basic gender roles:  
masculine (having the qualities attributed to males) and feminine  
(having the qualities attributed to females)” but “[o]ther cultures  
have three or more gender roles” (pg. 81).  
iv. Alleging that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes”  
continue to struggle for and “demand equality” in sports (pg. 86).  
g. Putting inappropriate material in a Girlhood (It’s Complicated) exhibit designed  
for young children, including the pages of a 6-year-old girl’s diary where she  
expresses fear about “getting boobs” and wishes for her nonexistent “penis to  
grow” (pg. 89);  
16  
h. Putting sexually suggestive materials inappropriate for young children in its  
exhibits, including drag queens, magazine covers featuring photos of nude young  
women, and a two-piece chrome and rubber crotch harness designed for  
sadomasochism (S&M) sexual activity (pg. 90);  
i. Creating an All Work, No Pay exhibit portraying homemaking as oppressive to all  
women, but particularly to “African Americans, Latinas and other women of  
color” (pg. 78);  
j. Taking a firm stance in favor of abortion, publicly criticizing the Supreme Court’s  
Dobbs v. Jackson decision, and encouraging Museum visitors to do the same (pg.  
91);  
k. Incorporating anti-gun activism into youth-oriented exhibits (pgs. 92-95);  
l. Creating exhibits and educational materials designed to convince America’s  
children to defy authority, including teachers, parents, and religion (pg. 63); and  
m. Lionizing Angela Davis, a prominent Marxist and former vice-presidential  
candidate of the U.S. Communist Party who has called for the abolition of police,  
jails, prisons, and immigrant enforcement (pg. 78).  
3.  
The Smithsonian’s NMAH has extensively advocated for millions of illegal aliens to be  
granted U.S. citizenship and voting rights, including by:  
a. Creating a Becoming US educational curriculum that instructs high school  
teachers to avoid using the terms “illegal alien,” “illegal immigrant,” “illegal,  
illegals” (pgs. 41-42) and teach the next generation of American voters that illegal  
aliens are essential to America’s culture, economy, and society, and therefore  
should become U.S. citizens—stating, (a) “There is no single American culture,  
language, or narrative”; (b) “Migrants have both been active citizens and have  
been denied access to the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship throughout  
American history”; and (c) “Xenophobia, forced migration, and deportation have  
affected individuals’ participation in democracy” (pgs. 40-41);  
b. Creating an Undocumented Organizing Collecting Initiative where NMAH’s  
Center for Restorative History staff traveled across the country and Mexico to  
celebrate, interview, and partner with deported illegal aliens and other illegal  
alien activists who worked to “swing an election” to oust a North Carolina sheriff  
from office because he helped Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)  
deport nearly 300 criminal illegal aliens (including drunk drivers, rapists, heroin  
traffickers, and pedophiles) in 2017 (pgs. 29-31);  
c. Creating Tell Me What Democracy Looks Like, “a digital space” where middle  
and high school students can “meet five undocumented organizers and learn what  
17  
democracy looks like from their perspectives,” and an accompanying video that  
repeatedly highlighted illegal alien activists who demanded that ICE be abolished  
and illegal aliens be granted U.S. citizenship (pgs. 32-33); and  
d. Stating that “contextualizing” the “modern debate” over whether illegal aliens  
should be granted U.S. citizenship “through history’s lens is one of the key things  
that we do” at NMAH (pg. 24).  
4.  
The Smithsonian’s NMAH and leadership have consistently denigrated and displaced  
whites, males, Christians, and Americans in educational materials and programming, failing  
to highlight how Christians and Christian principles also have contributed to America’s  
Founding and flourishing, and focusing on race in areas where it has little to no historical  
relevance. Examples include:  
a. Studying a “White Supremacy Culture” document that alleges that “objectivity,”  
“individualism,” a “sense of urgency,” “worship of the written word,” and other  
traits are characteristics of “white supremacy” (pgs. 73-78).  
b. Prioritizing hiring and special programming for “Non-US Residents” and “Non-  
English Speakers” across the Smithsonian Institution (pgs. 68);  
c. Complaining that “the whole construct [of history taught in K-12 schools] was  
primarily white” and that teaching a single narrative that centers white people  
stunts “our imaginations” and is “dangerous” (pg. 55);  
d. Alleging that “white audiences” have an “empathy gap” which “makes it difficult  
for [them] to relate to and subsequently want to see stories that center Black  
people,” and that closing that gap must be part of its educational programming  
(pg. 56);  
e. Promoting materials from the anti-white Southern Poverty Law Center in its  
“educational” programming for high school students and teachers (pgs. 55-56);  
and  
f. Supporting the transfer of American land and power back to Indigenous peoples  
and recommending that individuals read an article by an author who advocates for  
such changes on the basis that “the museum [is] an imperial structure that is  
intimately tied to systemic whiteness” (pg. 53); and  
5.  
The Smithsonian’s NMAH has developed and promoted a national education curriculum  
that presents a radical view of American history and elevated individuals to positions of  
leadership to advance that radical view through educational programming that has reached  
tens of millions of individuals (and up to 80% of history teachers) in recent years. Examples  
include:  
18  
a. Creating a Becoming US educational curriculum that—in addition to pushing for  
citizenship for illegal aliens—fails to focus on the Founding Fathers or the  
American Founding, but rather on the peoples, cultures, and languages that were  
present “long before the founding of the United States” despite being centered  
around the question “How did we become US?” (pg. 48);  
b. Promoting an individual to the position of “Head of PreK-12 Learning” at NMAH  
after he (i) warned of the “Danger of A Single Story in Storytelling Today” that  
focuses on white people; (ii) argued that white people have an “empathy gap”  
preventing them from wanting to “see stories that center black people”; (iii)  
criticized America’s “system of law” because it involves a neutral judge presiding  
over an adversarial process that “makes one party the ‘bad guy’” and includes  
“coercion or punishment” and “force” as “a consideration” rather than focus on  
“problem-solving”; (iv) criticized the “logic” of western civilization because it  
“privileges order, organization, and taxonomy” and “situates non-white and non-  
western as inferior”; (v) argued that the U.S. should go further than  
“decolonization” and “move towards reMaorification or reindigenosation” (which  
involves “the repatriation of…all of the land” to Indigenous Peoples and “a full-  
scale re-ordering of the world through political, economic, and social processes”);  
(vi) noted that he made his ninth-grade classroom a place that was “informed by  
thinking that confronts coloniality”; and (vii) co-led NMAH’s “Decolonization  
Working Group” (pgs. 51-54); and  
c. Partnering with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), including  
recommending that high school teachers prepare to teach the Becoming US  
curriculum by exploring the website of SPLC’s Teaching Tolerance program and  
using SPLC’s Let’s Talk guide, which (i) frames classroom discussion around  
themes of “injustice,” “identity and power,” and systems that “privilege some at  
the expense of others,” (ii) discusses how to “not reinforce hierarchies, but to  
correct for them,” and (iii) highlights a toolkit entitled “Confronting White  
Nationalism in Schools” (pgs. 54-55).  
Our interim findings also reveal that both the Smithsonian and NMAH, much like the broader  
museum profession,76 engage in discriminatory and likely illegal behaviors and practices, and are  
funded in part by large endowments that advocate for discriminatory practices, such as the  
Mellon Foundation, America’s largest funder of the humanities,77 and others.78  
19  
Chapter II. The National Museum of American History and Its Radical Ideology  
NMAH was created in 1957 and opened in 1964 as the Museum of History and Technology  
within the United States National Museum.79 It became the National Museum of History and  
Technology in 1969, and in 1980 its “name was changed to the National Museum of American  
History to better represent its basic mission—the collection, care, and study of objects that reflect  
the experience of the American people.”80  
As a Blue Ribbon Commission on the National Museum of American History noted in 2002,  
“NMAH enjoys one of the most desirable locations in America. It is at the heart of the national  
mall, in dramatic proximity to the Washington Monument, with direct views of the Smithsonian  
castle and the Lincoln Memorial.”81 Each year, millions of visitors from across the country and  
around the world visit NMAH and participate in its public programs, educational activities,  
collections, and research facilities on its approximately 750,000 square foot property, which  
includes “a basement, three main exhibition levels, two office collection levels, and a mechanical  
penthouse on the roof.”82 And each year, “Millions more make virtual visits to the museum’s  
website.”83  
In fact, the Smithsonian recently described NMAH in its official budget request to Congress as  
“the Smithsonian’s flagship history museum.”84 NMAH is “America’s only national museum of  
American history” and “America’s largest history museum,” with “about 200,000 square feet of  
exhibition floor space” and “more than three million objects” in its collections, “which occupy  
an additional 265,000 square feet of storage space” and “amount to a unique and irreplaceable  
representation of America’s social, cultural, scientific and technological history.”85 It is rightly  
described as a “national treasure.”86  
Photo of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History (https://americanhistory.si.edu/visit) and  
Director Anthea M. Hartig (https://www.si.edu/about/bios/anthea-m-hartig).  
20  
1. NMAH’s Self-Proclaimed Activist Leadership  
The Director of NMAH is appointed by the Secretary of the Smithsonian, in consultation with  
the Board of Regents, which serves as the governing body of the Institution. The current  
Director, Anthea M. Hartig, was appointed in December 2018 and took over the position in  
February 2019 with a starting salary of $300,000.87 The Director reports to the Secretary of the  
Smithsonian Institution, Lonnie Bunch, who is appointed by the Board of Regents. In this role,  
he is responsible for the operations of all Smithsonian Institution entities, and receives over  
$989,000 in annual compensation.88  
There have long been indications that Dr. Hartig is more interested in political activism than  
historical scholarship. Dr. Hartig explained her self-understanding early in her tenure at NMAH:  
“I will always be in a state of becoming an historian, and I know what a head start I had propped  
up as I was and I am by the cushions of whiteness and the pillows of the bourgeoisie.  
Throughout my career, one of my roles, as I now understand it, is to address the often lack of  
continuity and discourse between academic scholarship and research and public interpretation,  
commemoration, and not to mention connecting that research and scholarship to activism and  
advocacy.”89  
Dr. Hartig’s objective as Director of NMAH was also made clear in a statement she published on  
the Museum’s website in 2020, within a week of George Floyd’s death: “The nation was founded  
on the great paradox of a dynamic form of republican democracy based on the supremacy of  
white, landed men and the institution of chattel slavery. What then is our task? . . . At the  
National Museum of American History, we work to reframe the traditional celebratory narrative  
of U.S. history for visitors to our museum and digital spaces. Hosting and facilitating dynamic  
public programming and national reckonings is critical for us to help all Americans make sense  
of these tragically difficult times.”90  
In a 2022 presentation entitled, Challenging the Narrative Landscape of the Past to Create a  
More Just Future at the Smithsonian, Hartig explained that under her leadership, NMAH is  
working with other Smithsonian museums to “dismantle” the “narrative lockdown that many of  
us have inherited.”91 In June 2024, Hartig put it simply: “History as a practice...is for me a prime  
tool of social justice.”92  
2. NMAH’s New Mission of Social and Political Activism  
Shortly after becoming Director, Hartig also gave NMAH a new goal: become “the most  
accessible, inclusive, relevant, and sustainable public history museum in the nation.”93 To  
achieve this goal, Director Hartig and Smithsonian leadership directed NMAH staff to write a  
new mission statement and Strategic Plan for the museum.  
Previously, NMAH’s mission had been the following: “Through incomparable collections,  
rigorous research, and dynamic public outreach, we explore the infinite richness and complexity  
of American history. We help people understand the past in order to make sense of the present  
and shape a more humane future.”94 However, after Hartig became Director, NMAH rewrote its  
21  
mission to simply read: “Empowering people to create a more just and compassionate future by  
exploring, preserving, and sharing the complexity of our past.”95  
As “the infinite richness” of American history was dropped to leave only “complexity,” and  
“American history” was replaced by “our past,” the new objective became empowerment for the  
sake of social and political activism, not learning for the sake of understanding. Rather than  
presenting American history to understand the past, NMAH now seeks to use the complexities of  
history to encourage societal change,96 aligning with Hartig’s goal of making history “a prime  
tool of social justice.”97  
Screenshot of Director Hartig outlining NMAH’s new mission, available at https://youtu.be/QxKVJ1pYcEw?t=2578.  
3. NMAH’s Attempt to Push Museum Visitors Away from an “America First Mentality”  
In a June 2024 presentation to undergraduate and graduate history students, Hartig explained that  
NMAH made this change in order to help people “get out of the ‘America First’ mentality,”  
adding that “it’s a big challenge, especially going into 2026, which will be the 250th anniversary  
of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.”98 She stated:  
It’s hard to get out of the ‘America First’ mentality, and that’s—we didn’t talk much  
about that, but we wrestle—I wrestle—with that all the time. It’s just that, and why we  
changed our mission when I first came, you know, to be very future-facing but also to  
really think, you know, kind of what does it mean to show that full and rich complexity  
of the past. I think it’s a big challenge, especially going into 2026, which will be the 250th  
anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the 25th year since 9/11,  
the fifth year since January 6th.99  
As part of getting “out of the ‘America First’ mentality,” Hartig explained that she believes that  
“the scope of U.S. history” and the term “America” should really include “the entirety of the  
Americas, not just our part of North America.”100  
22  
In a 2022 presentation entitled Doing Our Work in a Time of Multiple Pandemics and Cascading  
Crises, Hartig put this belief into practice, sharing a list of her “favorite things” from NMAH’s  
national collection of 1.8 million objects, which in many cases explicitly directed attention away  
from America, Americans, and American history towards non-American individuals, countries,  
and ethnic groups.101 Hartig noted that the selected items “encapsulate” her “learning path as a  
historian” and “the importance of conserving and sharing the materiality of our past as a useful  
tool to create a more just and informed and compassionate future,” reflecting NMAH’s new  
mission statement.102  
One of the first objects Hartig highlighted was a cane belonging to Toussaint L’Ouverture, a  
military and political leader in the 1804 Haitian Revolution, because it “disrupts and complicates  
and re-centers global revolutions and kind of moves it away from a relatively ethno- and Anglo-  
centric narrative, especially of the United States’ founding.”103 In other words, Hartig stated that  
she liked the Haitian cane because it reframed history away from America, particularly  
America’s “Anglo” (white) Founding Fathers, which is the Museum’s intent under its current  
leadership.  
Other items on Hartig’s list of “favorite things” within NMAH’s collections include:  
1. The “outfits worn by childbearing servants in Hulu’s adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s  
The Handmaid’s Tale” because the “costumes have been worn by activists in several  
high-profile demonstrations, including those for women’s reproductive rights”;104  
2. The “homemade and hand-painted butterfly wings…collected from a young Nebraskan  
activist who was marching on Capitol Hill in 2018” because “Monarch wings are an  
important symbol to undocumented organizers as their annual journey across the North  
American continent speaks to the migration, survival, and transformation of many  
immigrants”;105  
3. Billie Jean King’s tennis outfit because she was a “social justice pioneer” who defeated a  
man in “the battle of the sexes tennis match”;106 and  
4. A statue created by “agricultural activists” depicting Lady Liberty as a Hispanic  
immigrant worker carrying a basket of tomatoes.107  
23  
Screenshot of Hartig highlighting NMAH’s “DACA Wings” as one of her favorite things because she says they  
“are an important symbol to undocumented organizers,” https://youtu.be/HERz54an_-c?t=1816.  
After singling out the “DACA Wings” as one of her favorite objects in NMAH’s collections,  
Hartig explained that NMAH decided to feature them in a new exhibit dedicated to “Girlhood,”  
because “DACA is part of an ongoing debate that’s lasted now for centuries over who gets to be  
a citizen, who gets to be educated. Contextualizing that modern debate through history’s lens is  
one of the key things that we do [at NMAH] and especially that we do in Girlhood.”108  
Screenshots of Director Hartig explaining that NMAH has incorporated the DACA Wings into its “Girlhood (It’s  
Complicated)” exhibit to push for citizenship for illegal aliens, https://youtu.be/HERz54an_-c?t=1892.  
NMAH’s Interpretative Plan explains how NMAH’s new mission, Strategic Plan, and  
“contextualiz[ation]” of “modern debate” works in practice, stating that the focus on “the  
complexity of our past” creates an opportunity for a new collective community: “We share the  
complexity of the past for a purpose: our statement looks to the future and envisions  
empowerment, justice, and compassion.”109 By focusing on “cross-cultural encounters,  
24  
revolutions and resistances, turning points and points that failed to turn,” the Museum will create  
new experiences so that visitors “will recognize themselves as change-makers and connect to  
each other as a public. They will be empowered to pursue a ‘just and compassionate future.’”110  
In other words, Hartig made it clear from the beginning that her leadership of NMAH would be  
social justice activism under the guise of historical commemoration. And, on that promise, she  
has been delivering.  
4. NMAH’s Center for Restorative History  
The institutionalization of this stated purpose can be seen in the establishment of NMAH’s  
Center for Restorative History (CRH), which Dr. Hartig launched the same year she became  
NMAH Director with the stated goal of fundamentally changing how the Smithsonian taught  
history. In 2021, Hartig noted, “We’re launching the Center for Restorative History, which aims  
to…address the harm that we’ve done as the Smithsonian.”111  
Screenshots available at https://americanhistory.si.edu/about/centers/restorative-history. Highlights added.  
To ensure that the Center would be deeply integrated into the Museum’s broader work, Director  
Hartig also commissioned the drafting of a museum-wide “Decolonization/Restorative History  
Plan,”112 which the Smithsonian now states does not exist113—even though NMAH’s Collections  
Plan refers to the Decolonization Plan as if it exists and Director Hartig gave a presentation in  
2022, which included a slide devoted to explaining NMAH’s “New Collections,” “Interpretive,”  
and “Decolonization Plans.”114  
25  
Screenshots of the NMAH Collections Plan, available at  
https://americanhistory.si.edu/sites/default/files/NMAH_Collections_Plan.pdf, at 5. Highlights added.  
Screenshot of a 2022 video in which Director Hartig presents a slide explaining how NMAH developed a new  
“decolonization” plan, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HERz54an_-c&t=3023s. Highlights added.  
In 2022, Hartig explained that the “hopes that we had to create a true Decolonization Plan have  
grown” and “beautifully come into another being…in the form of the emergent Center for  
Restorative History,” co-founded by NMAH’s Tsione Wolde-Michael and Nancy Bercaw.115  
26  
Screenshot of NMAH Director Hartig giving a talk entitled, “Challenging the Narrative Landscape of the Past to  
Create a More Just Future at the Smithsonian,” highlighting how CRH seeks to “DECOLONIZE THIS MUSEUM,”  
available at https://youtu.be/CVpbfZnBNu4?t=988.https://youtu.be/CVpbfZnBNu4?t=988.  
According to the Center’s explanatory document, Restorative History draws “on the principles of  
restorative justice [and] addresses the needs of historically harmed communities by examining  
the past to understand the root causes of historical harms.”116 The document explains: “Examples  
of historically harmed communities in the United States are BIPOC people (Black, Indigenous,  
and other people of color); LGBTQ+ people (who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,  
queer, and more); people with disabilities; working-class people; people from regions without  
equal access to education and museums; and people who have intersecting identities within these  
communities.”117 According to NMAH, the root cause of these harms is “systemic  
oppression.”118  
Restorative History, therefore, “encourages systemic change within an organization” and is a  
“systemic intervention” for the purpose of “transforming the national historical narrative,  
restructuring institutional priorities, and privileging knowledge production in the communities  
that have been silenced or overlooked by museums and other educational institutions.”119  
And, as the Center’s explanatory document notes, the key to “transforming the national historical  
narrative” was systemic change at NMAH: “Working out of a national museum was an important  
intervention, as the museum is an institution that has perpetuated harm through its histories of  
collecting and display.”120  
27  
Screenshots of CRH’s explanatory document “RESTORATIVE HISTORY [explained]” on NMAH’s website,  
available at https://americanhistory.si.edu/sites/default/files/Restorative%20History-explained_2.pdf.  
As CRH explains on NMAH’s website, to redress that harm, the Center “spotlight[s] the people  
and stories that have been excluded from our national narrative using the principles of restorative  
justice. We do this by partnering with communities across the country that continue to resist  
these exclusions.”121  
28  
Chapter III. Examples of Ideological Purpose at the National Museum of American  
History  
1. NMAH’s Extensive Partnerships with, and Advocacy for Extending Citizenship to,  
Illegal Aliens  
One such partnership came via CRH’s Undocumented Organizing Collective Initiative  
(UOCI)—now scrubbed from NMAH’s website—which framed illegal alien activists lobbying  
the U.S. Government, on behalf of the 11 million+ illegal aliens nationwide who legally should  
not be in the country, as heirs to the emancipation of American slaves and the Civil Rights  
Movement.122  
Screenshot of the message visitors receive when they attempt to visit NMAH’s Undocumented Organizing Collecting  
Initiative website, available at https://americanhistory.si.edu/about/centers/restorative-history/projects/uoci. See  
archived link below.  
“There are only a handful of moments in our nation’s history when people without citizenship or  
voting rights have changed government policy. It happened during emancipation, woman  
suffrage, and civil rights, and it’s happening again right now with undocumented immigrant  
organizing,” reads the opening lines of UOCI’s since-deleted page on NMAH’s website.123  
Under the banner of UOCI, NMAH staff (Nancy Bercaw, Patricia Arteaga, and José Centeno-  
Meléndez) traveled to six different locations across the country and locations in Mexico to  
interview illegal alien “activists” who were demanding U.S. citizenship.124 This included  
traveling to Mexico City to interview deported illegal aliens, and to North Carolina to interview  
illegal alien activists who worked to “swing an election” against a local sheriff because he  
worked with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to deport almost 300 criminal illegal  
aliens, including drunk drivers, rapists, heroin traffickers, and pedophiles, in 2017.125  
29