1. United States
2. Ohio
3. Letter

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose the Trump administration's efforts to dictate the Smithsonian Institution's presentation of American history. Congress should safeguard the Smithsonian’s independence while maintaining legitimate oversight of public funds. FEDERAL OVERSIGHT MUST NOT TRANSITION INTO POLITICAL CONTROL While oversight of federally supported institutions is appropriate, the administration has, since March 2025, taken measures that exceed conventional financial or administrative review. On March 27, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14253, titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” asserting that the Smithsonian has been influenced by a “divisive, race-centered ideology.” Subsequently, the White House Domestic Policy Council conducted a multi-month review of Smithsonian exhibits, educational materials, and programming. This culminated in a 162-page report, “Saving America’s Story,” released on July 4, 2026, which concluded that the National Museum of American History had undergone “ideological capture.” According to reports from the Associated Press, CBS News, NBC News, and the Washington Post, Trump issued a further order on July 24, 2026, directing Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and other officials to install warning signage outside the museum and utilize all available authorities to compel changes. Collectively, these actions risk allowing federal power to unduly influence professional historical judgment. CONGRESS ESTABLISHED A PUBLIC TRUST, NOT AN EXECUTIVE AGENCY The Smithsonian, established by Congress as a trust instrumentality, is governed by a Board of Regents under the 1846 Organic Act (20 U.S.C. Section 41). This legislation confers upon Congress the responsibility to protect its accountability and independence. Courts have determined that the Smithsonian is not an executive agency subject to laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act, indicating that political control is legally, and not merely institutionally, inappropriate. While the administration may critique exhibits and Congress may scrutinize spending and governance, curatorial judgments should be grounded in evidence and professional standards, rather than political directives. POLITICAL PRESSURE POSES A THREAT TO PUBLIC CONFIDENCE American history encompasses both significant achievements and profound injustices. An honest presentation of both is crucial for students, researchers, and the general public. The implications of this issue extend beyond the current dispute. Should one administration leverage funding and public pressure to influence museum content, future administrations could replicate this practice for opposing objectives, thereby making the Smithsonian appear to align with the prevailing political power. CONGRESS MUST ESTABLISH CLEAR BOUNDARIES (1) SPEAK OUT: Publicly affirm that legitimate oversight must not evolve into political direction of Smithsonian scholarship or exhibits. (2) HOLD HEARINGS: Examine the administration’s orders, document requests, and any funding pressure exerted on Smithsonian governance and programming. (3) PROTECT INDEPENDENCE: Enact legislation that defines appropriate oversight, prohibits political retaliation concerning curatorial content, and safeguards professional historical, scientific, and educational judgments. Thank you.