Historian Says Smithsonian Has Shifted To Activism, Not Education

The Smithsonian is once again under a harsh spotlight after a longtime historian walked through the National Museum of American History and came away saying it felt like a different institution altogether. Dr. Jody Edward Ginn, a museum professional and public historian, said the museum now seems less interested in teaching visitors and more focused on pushing a point of view. His criticism lands in the middle of a broader fight over how America’s biggest museum network tells the nation’s story.

Ginn said the gap between his 2012 visit and what he saw this time was impossible to ignore. He described the museum as having swapped out a straightforward educational experience for something more ideological, with exhibits that appear designed to steer people instead of inform them. That shift, he argued, is not subtle anymore.

He did not stop at general frustration. Ginn said the biggest problem is not only what appears on display, but what is left out, warning that selective storytelling can distort history just as quickly as false facts can. In his view, the museum’s job is to give visitors the tools to think, not pressure them toward a preset conclusion.

That complaint has become a familiar one in the fight over the Smithsonian. Critics from the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have argued that the institution is drifting away from neutral education and into activism, especially when it comes to exhibits that touch on race, sex, and modern political themes. Ginn said reading those concerns pushed him to make the trip from Texas and see the museum for himself.

What he found, he said, was a place that tries to direct visitors toward action rather than leave them with space to reflect. He said museums used to serve as places of public education, but many now seem eager to shape beliefs instead of presenting evidence. That, he warned, is how trust gets shredded.

Ginn also said some of the material he saw was flat-out wrong, though he focused even more on what he believes the museum leaves unsaid. In his eyes, a museum can mislead by omission just as easily as by error, especially when it frames exhibits in a way that nudges people toward a political result. He called that a serious break from the standards museums used to follow.

The concern grows sharper when children and families are in the room. Ginn said some of the museum’s graphic or sexually explicit material feels out of place in a setting that should be welcoming to all ages, not built to shock people or spark culture-war messages. His reaction matched a larger wave of criticism that has put Smithsonian leadership on the defensive.

That pressure was on full display during a recent House hearing, where lawmakers pressed Smithsonian National Museum of American History Director Anthea Hartig about controversial exhibits and staff materials. One of the flash points involved an exhibit on gay history that included a bondage harness, which drew heated questions from Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn. Lawmakers also pointed to a museum training guide that linked “objectivity” with “white supremacy culture,” a move critics say reveals the institution’s bias.

Ginn said the hearing only confirmed his fears. He described Hartig’s testimony as disappointing and said it did not sound like a scholarly defense of the museum’s work. To him, the institution has been trying to keep the language of neutrality while moving in a clearly political direction.

He also took issue with the museum’s revised mission statement, which he said changed the whole purpose of the place. Hartig has previously said the museum removed the phrase “American history” from the mission statement because of concerns about the “America First” mindset, a move that only fueled the argument that the Smithsonian is redefining itself around activism rather than national heritage.

For Ginn, the deeper worry is what this says about the profession itself. He believes the Smithsonian is only the most visible example of a wider drift inside museums, where educational standards are being pushed aside for messaging and ideology. That, he said, leaves the public with less history and more attitude.

Still, he was not optimistic that the institution can quickly turn back. Ginn said real change would require new leadership and staff who are committed to scholarly standards instead of political goals, a standard he believes has been badly lost. Even after the noise around the museum and the hearing, the fight over what belongs in America’s most prominent history displays is only getting louder.