Modern Age ( A Conservative Review ) Essays -- The Smithsonian’s Neutrality Complex More than a squabble over facts, the debate is about the meaning of truth in history. -- Christian Alejandro Gonzalez - September 10, 2026

 Modern Age ( A Conservative Review )

Essays

The Smithsonian’s Neutrality Complex

More than a squabble over facts, the debate is about the meaning of truth in history.

Christian Alejandro Gonzalez

September 10, 2026

National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C. (Gary D’Ercole/Getty Images)

The ongoing dispute over how the Smithsonian should present American history has pitted the Trump administration against the museum organization’s leadership, much of the mainstream media, and many professional historical associations.  

Trump wants the Smithsonian’s exhibits to be less woke and more patriotic. In a long report published in July, Saving America’s Story, his administration documented and criticized progressive activism at the National Museum of American History (NMAH). Trump has threatened to pull federal funding from the Smithsonian if it failed to comply with its demands, and on September 8, Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch resigned. The Smithsonian’s leadership and its supporters think the museum organization has done nothing wrong and is being subjected to unjust interference from the executive.  

Each side accuses the other of wanting to distort history in the service of a political or ideological agenda. The administration says the Smithsonian is driven by animus against America, writing in its report that “the museum 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.” The Smithsonian’s defenders reply that Trump wants to whitewash historical crimes and to ignore the stories of non-white people. The Organization of American Historians responded that the administration’s report “represents an attempt to turn back the clock to a time when U.S. history was taught as the history of white Christian men who conquered a continent, U.S. military leaders who rarely lost a battle, and U.S. presidents who were single-handedly responsible for national greatness.” 

Both the administration and the Smithsonian’s defenders frame themselves as the advocates of a genuinely accurate and politically impartial history. In doing so, they are competing for the moral high ground. But these appeals to neutrality misrepresent the nature of the dispute. If they want to win the debate—and tell a true story about America—they should drop the pretense of neutrality and admit that they want the Smithsonian to promote a moral and political project.  

That may sound counterintuitive, but it will actually allow both sides to contend directly with the dispute’s central question: How should we morally judge and present the story of America as a whole? In the last analysis, is it a tale of triumph or of tragedy? This kind of question can only be answered by reference to our moral values, to our judgments about how to morally appraise the facts of our history. 

The administration’s report complains that at the NMAH “the new objective became empowerment for the sake of social and political activism, not learning for the sake of understanding.” It calls for the history presented at the museum to “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.” 

But the report’s claims about the proper aim of the NMAH aren’t neutral at all: The administration wants the museum to “teach the history of an American nation that is worthy of our affections and worth passing along to future generations.” The administration wants the museum to teach American history with a positive gloss, so as to instill patriotism in the citizenry. These are moral and political commitments, and they will inevitably exert some influence on how the historical material is presented. 

 The Smithsonian’s leadership and its defenders make a similar error. In recent testimony to Congress, NMAH’s Director Anthea Hartig commented on how she understands her role. “It’s not for me to determine what’s problematic,” she said. It’s to determine “what’s accurate.” She also said of the museum more broadly that “we strive to be objective and nonpartisan.” When the administration’s report was published, the National Council on Public History put out a statement that condemned the attempt to “shape public history through political interference” and called for “an accurate interpretation of the full evidentiary record.” The Organization of American Historians also called for “accurate and evidence-based history,” denouncing the administration’s attempt to “coerce”—surely an inappropriate term in a context where no violence was used—the Smithsonian’s leadership.  

Yet it is obvious that content decisions at the NMAH are not driven solely by a concern for accuracy. Hartig herself has said that she wants the museum to shift away from celebratory narratives about the national story. The museum has hosted workshops designed to explore how museum work can promote the aims of social justice (as that term is understood by progressives). Many of the NMAH’s supplementary materials, such as its guides for teachers, evidently promote left-wing ideas. And that’s not even to mention one of the administration’s most just complaints against the museum: its use of taxpayer funds to advocate for progressive positions on contemporary policy issues, such as those concerning transgender rights, illegal immigration, and abortion.  

In short, everyone involved has a view of history shaped by their moral and political values. Until we give up false notions of neutrality, this debate will remain unresolvable. 

But the absence of neutrality isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Part of the aversion to admitting the political motivations and intentions behind one’s approach to the past may come from a mistaken assumption about the proper way to do history. According to this view, history should be like a science. It should be a disinterested, dispassionate, and morally neutral exploration of the facts of the past, just as science is (or at any rate is thought to be) a disinterested exploration of the facts of nature.   

This is the wrong way to think about history. On its own, a commitment to empirical accuracy cannot help in making two of the central kinds of choices that are made when the past is presented to the public. These are choices of selection and of framing. Choices of selection involve picking out which of the infinite facts of the past to present. Choices of framing involve figuring out how to interpret those facts—what to emphasize, what to downplay, and the overall moral impression that these choices will make.  

If the only thing that mattered were accuracy, then there could in principle be a museum of American history devoted to some rather trivial set of perfectly accurate facts. Historians might, for instance, design a museum most of whose exhibits focused on, say, the kinds of materials used to build houses or farm equipment over time. The reason they don’t is because that’s not what most people care about. Human beings are interested in the aspects of history that most affect human life, such as decisions over war and peace, the economy, and the shape of their political institutions.  

Thus, our values have a legitimate role to play in historical representations. Now this does not mean that we can distort the empirical facts in the service of our political agenda: A commitment to empirical truth constrains how people present the past by vetoing all false representations. But what we choose to talk about, and how we choose to talk about it, is shaped by our moral and political commitments—and that’s perfectly fine.  

The dispute between the Trump administration and the Smithsonian is at bottom a moral dispute over selection and framing. The administration wants museums to focus on historical facts relating to high politics and ideas. It also wants them to frame the narrative positively, because it thinks that the American story is worthy of praise. Meanwhile, the Smithsonian and its defenders want to select facts about America that focus on the experiences of ordinary (or oppressed) people because those are the facts that matter most to them. And they want to frame the overall story negatively because they think America has always been—and continues to be—a deeply unjust country.  

This is of course a simplification, but I think it captures the essence of the matter. And if we understand the dispute in this way, then the administration has the winning hand. Despite the very real crimes and injustices of its past—crimes which the administration’s report rightly acknowledges—the United States still stands out as an oasis of freedom and prosperity when compared to most of the alternatives that have existed in world history. The moral reality of the situation is that our national story does deserve our (qualified) admiration, once all things are considered. The administration’s desire to frame our story positively is justified by the moral facts. 

The administration recognizes that promulgating a positive evaluation of our history would help promote national feeling. This desire to promote national feeling is also a worthy political project. While nationalism can fall prey to all kinds of evils and deformities, it is still worth cultivating a sense of kinship and unity with our fellow citizens. This fellow-feeling for one’s compatriots is part of what allows Americans to live peacefully together. (Indeed, the administration would do well to cultivate more of that national fellow-feeling with respect to those progressives whom it tends to detest!) 

Instead of appealing to mere neutrality or accuracy, then, the administration should more straightforwardly confront the values of the leadership at the Smithsonian—its sense of what matters and its overall evaluation of our story. Most Americans agree that America has been a force for good in the world and would likely want their history to be given a positive gloss in its museums. We should ask the Smithsonian’s leadership for the reasons why it rejects this perspective. Its answer likely won’t be compelling. 

 

Christian Alejandro Gonzalez is a research fellow in education policy at the American Enterprise Institute.