The Smithsonian’s latest move has put a fresh spotlight on a fight that has been simmering for years: whether the nation’s most visible cultural institutions are telling history straight or filtering it through ideology. The permanent home chosen for the National Museum of the American Latino has set off new criticism, especially from voices who say the museum’s early exhibitions pushed a political message instead of a broad American story.
At the center of the criticism is the Smithsonian’s decision to place the museum in the Arts and Industries Building, a property the institution already controls. Critics say that matters because it sidesteps the kind of congressional approval that could have sparked a bigger fight on Capitol Hill. Supporters of the move may see it as practical, but opponents view it as a slick way to keep lawmakers out of the room.
Mike Gonzalez, a longtime critic of the museum, has argued that the inaugural exhibition reflected a hard-left worldview. He said the show leaned into immigration politics, gender identity themes, U.S. intervention, and praise for figures tied to the political left, all while flattening the history of Hispanic Americans into a narrow ideological lane.
One of the biggest flashpoints in his review was the phrase, “we didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us.” Gonzalez called that line historically sloppy and said it works more like a slogan than a serious explanation of American history. In his view, it pushes a grievance-first version of events while skipping over the many Mexicans who stayed in territory that later became part of the United States and went on to become Americans.
That argument goes beyond one exhibit panel. Gonzalez says the larger message inside the museum treats the United States as a problem to be corrected rather than a country worth understanding on its own terms. He described the museum’s tone as anti-Western and anti-American, saying the curators seemed more interested in tearing down national confidence than building it up.
The report he reviewed highlighted displays centered on gender identity, immigration, and political activism, along with tributes to Marxist or left-wing figures. One exhibit, “Jose Julio Sarria: Drag and Politics,” described Sarria as a “legendary drag performer [and] the first openly gay person to run for public office in the U.S.” Another display featured a Cuban transgender HIV/AIDS activist who fled Cuba during the Mariel Boatlift.
Gonzalez also took aim at the museum’s treatment of Orlando Letelier, a former foreign minister under Salvador Allende in Chile. He said the exhibit frames Letelier as a kind of martyr while ignoring the wider political reality around him, and he argued that the whole presentation turns a complex history into a left-wing morality play.
His criticism extends to how the museum handles Cuba, too. Gonzalez said the display on the Batista era leaves out the brutality of the Castro years and even includes a cartoon mocking the United States over the Iran-Contra affair. He pointed out that Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega later returned to power and has since crushed elections, which makes the old joke look a lot less clever in hindsight.
The Smithsonian has not publicly responded to Gonzalez’s report or his comments, but the broader controversy is not fading. The institution has faced growing questions about whether its museums are drifting into activist territory, and the Latino museum has become one of the clearest examples in that debate.
Former Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch III recently announced his retirement after four decades with the institution, which only added more fuel to the conversation. Critics want a cleaner break from what they see as an inside culture that rewards political messaging, while defenders are left trying to explain why the public keeps hearing the same complaints about bias, framing, and historical judgment.
Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., who serves as a Smithsonian Regent and fled Cuban socialism himself, has said the institution should be held to a high standard. His office said the Smithsonian ought to be fair and balanced, aim for truth, and present both sides of the equation, a basic test that now sits right at the center of the fight.
