The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History has undergone what Hillsdale College professor Dr. Matthew Spaulding calls a complete “ideological takeover,” with the professor arguing that visitors can now walk through the museum without receiving a coherent account of the nation’s history.
“There’s really nothing there about America,” Spaulding said during an appearance on “Washington Watch.”
His criticism comes amid a larger battle over how the Smithsonian presents the American past, a dispute that has reached the White House and resulted in a lengthy federal review of the institution’s exhibits and leadership.
According to Spaulding, the problem is not simply that the museum has expanded its exhibits to include previously neglected people or events. He argues that the institution has fundamentally changed the purpose of presenting history.
Spaulding described the approach as one rooted in “absolute relativism and nihilism,” in which politics and history become questions of power rather than attempts to establish and explain historical facts.
“History is an assertion of power, and so we’re going to rearrange it,” he said, characterizing what he believes is the philosophy guiding the museum.
A 162-page White House report released July 4 reached a similarly critical conclusion. The report was produced following President Donald Trump’s March 27, 2025 executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which ordered a review of narratives presented at national historical institutions.
“Our central finding is not that the Museum has simply added overlooked stories, corrected perceived errors, or broadened its historical scope,” the report stated.
Instead, the administration argued that museum leadership had adopted “an ideological framework” that no longer presents American history as a “shared national inheritance,” but uses it as a political instrument.
Spaulding pointed to what visitors encounter — and what he says they do not encounter — as evidence.
“You can’t go there and learn about America,” he said, arguing that subjects traditionally associated with a national history museum have either disappeared or become so “downplayed and decentered” that visitors cannot follow the basic chronology of the country.
He contrasted those omissions with exhibits addressing gender and sexuality. Among the examples he cited were material involving a young girl questioning whether she would develop male sexual characteristics, drag performers, and clothing associated with sexual practices.
“Just what I need to know about American history,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins responded sarcastically.
Spaulding also criticized the museum’s treatment of Benjamin Franklin. He said visitors can learn that Franklin had indentured servants and enslaved people and encounter questions about whether Franklin conducted electrical experiments on enslaved people.
Spaulding objected particularly to the latter suggestion, saying there is no evidence establishing that Franklin did so.
At the same time, he argued, visitors are not given important context about Franklin’s later involvement in the abolitionist movement. Franklin became president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. Spaulding also pointed to Alexander Hamilton’s involvement with the New-York Manumission Society.
For Spaulding, the cumulative effect matters more than any single exhibit.
“You can get caught in the weeds of the particulars,” he said. “The particulars are shocking. But, [when] you put the particulars together and see what it’s replaced, it doesn’t tell American history.”
