White House Report Targets Smithsonian Museum in 162 Pages as Historians and Visitors Push Back
Updated
Updated · USA TODAY · Jul 10
White House Report Targets Smithsonian Museum in 162 Pages as Historians and Visitors Push Back
3 articles · Updated · USA TODAY · Jul 10
Summary
A 162-page White House Domestic Policy Council report released July 4 accused the National Museum of American History of promoting a “radical, activist ideology” and downplaying America’s founding and achievements.
The report says exhibits overemphasize racism, oppression and inequality, criticizing portrayals of the Pilgrims, Thanksgiving and European settlement, plus programming on race, immigration and gender identity.
Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch told staff the document was “not a fair characterization” of the museum, while the Organization of American Historians and other scholars said it cherry-picks examples and attacks evidence-based history.
More than a dozen visitors interviewed July 9 — including some Trump supporters — said the museum presents a fair, nuanced account, though a few echoed the White House view that the founding fathers deserve more emphasis.
The clash extends Trump’s broader campaign to reshape cultural institutions: he previously ordered a Smithsonian review, pushed spending limits through Vice President JD Vance and pressured out a museum director, even though the Smithsonian is governed by a 17-member board, not the executive branch.
Can a national museum tell a complete story that satisfies all citizens?
White House vs. Smithsonian: The 2026 "Saving America’s Story" Report and the Battle Over U.S. Historical Narrative
Overview
On July 4, 2026, the White House Domestic Policy Council released a 162-page report sharply criticizing the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History (NMAH). The report accused NMAH of extreme political activism and promoting a radical view of American history, suggesting its exhibits had strayed from traditional narratives. This sparked immediate controversy and strong reactions from historians, especially the Organization of American Historians, who argued the report was a partisan attack. The debate highlights a deep divide over how American history should be presented, with the White House pushing for a more traditional approach and historians defending a broader, more inclusive interpretation.