The UK Museums Association writes that the report “Saving America’s Story” follows a directive issued by President Donald Trump in 2025 calling for an investigation into what he described as “improper, divisive or anti-American ideology” within the Smithsonian. The National Museum of American History, one of 22 museums and research centres administered by the Smithsonian Institution, is the primary focus of the report.
According to its authors, the museum has shifted away from presenting American history as a shared national narrative and instead interprets the nation’s past through contemporary political and social issues. The report argues that themes such as race, identity, gender, immigration, economic inequality and social justice have become central organising principles in the museum’s exhibitions and programmes.
The report also references public statements and planning documents associated with museum director Anthea Hartig, criticising efforts to re-examine traditional narratives of US history and proposals to approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence through a more critical lens. It contends that while museums should address historical injustices, including slavery, the treatment of Indigenous peoples and systemic discrimination, these subjects should not overshadow narratives that promote civic identity and national unity.
Concluding that the Smithsonian’s current interpretive approach does not adequately fulfil its role as a steward of the nation’s shared heritage, the report calls for a renewed emphasis on patriotism and a more celebratory presentation of American history.
Smithsonian defends its scholarship
The Smithsonian has rejected the report’s characterisation of its work. In a statement, a spokesperson said that the institution has served the American public for more than 180 years through independent, nonpartisan scholarship and remains committed to that mission.
Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch has also defended the institution’s approach. According to an internal memorandum reported by The Washington Post, Bunch said the report did not fairly represent the work of the National Museum of American History. He reiterated that the Smithsonian’s activities are guided by scholarship, accuracy and a commitment to presenting the full breadth of the American experience.
The criticism comes amid broader tensions between the Trump administration and the Smithsonian. Recent media reports have highlighted pressure on Smithsonian leadership and disagreements over the role of museums in presenting complex and sometimes contested histories.
While Bunch has largely avoided direct engagement with political criticism, he has regularly emphasised the importance of confronting difficult aspects of the nation’s past. In recent interviews, he argued that understanding history in all its complexity is essential to strengthening democratic society and fostering a more inclusive understanding of national identity.
Concerns across the museum sector
The report has prompted concern among many museum professionals, who view it as part of a broader debate about institutional independence and the role of museums in addressing contested histories.
Supporters of the Smithsonian have argued that museums have a responsibility not only to celebrate national achievements but also to examine historical injustices and provide space for multiple perspectives. Museum consultant Elaine Heumann Gurian, among others, has publicly defended the institution, stating that the Smithsonian has sought to help visitors engage thoughtfully with the complexity of the United States’ history and its ongoing significance.
The dispute reflects wider discussions taking place across the museum sector internationally about representation, historical interpretation and the extent to which museums should engage with contemporary social and political issues. These debates are not limited to the United States. NEMO’s 2025 Barometer on political influence in museums in Europe found that a majority of respondents reported experiencing political pressure, while growing societal polarisation was identified as an increasing challenge for museums across Europe. The study highlighted concerns that political influence can undermine museums’ independence, credibility and ability to operate impartially.
In response, NEMO advocates for museums’ professional independence and their ability to operate free from undue political interference. Museums must be able to make decisions based on professional standards, research and ethical principles in order to fulfil their public mission effectively. Through its Independent Museums Hub, NEMO provides resources, case studies and advocacy tools to support museums in safeguarding their autonomy and strengthening their role as trusted institutions in democratic societies.
Update added on 21 July 2026:
Statement by the American Alliance for Museums
On 20 July, the American Alliance of Museums responded with a statement condemning efforts to politicise how museums present history, art, science, culture, and the natural world, as well as personal attacks on the museum professionals entrusted with preserving and interpreting our shared heritage.
In the statement they write “American public overwhelmingly supports museums as trusted, nonpartisan institutions. AAM’s national research has found 92% of US adults think museums are non-partisan providers of educational content; the majority of Americans oppose censorship in museums; and majorities across the political spectrum want museums to present full and inclusive content. Americans want access to evidence, scholarship, and authentic artifacts so they can consider the complexities of our shared past and decide for themselves what those histories mean. Attempts to censor or restrict those stories are fundamentally at odds with what the public wants from museums.”
