Smithsonian Director Responds to Criticism Over Exhibits

The leader of the National Museum of American History is standing firm on her decisions regarding the museum’s displays, even after facing serious pushback over a controversial exhibit related to Benjamin Franklin.

Anthea Hartig, the museum’s director, was questioned rigorously by lawmakers during recent hearings in Washington. This scrutiny came after a report from the White House Domestic Policy Council claimed the museum was misusing public funds to support what it called “radical activist ideology.”

At a House hearing, expert Mike Gonzalez from the Heritage Foundation spoke against a special exhibit titled “Electric Dr. Franklin.” He mentioned that it insinuated Franklin might have experimented with electric shocks on indentured servants or slaves, a claim he described as “shocking” and “unsupported by evidence.”

Gonzalez raised concerns, asking, “Why would you even think something like that about a founding father?” It’s a fair question, and even as I think about it, it feels odd to project such ideas onto figures like Franklin.

Following this, Republican Rep. Brian Jacques confronted Hartig, asking if she had regrets about any of the displays during her time as director. Hartig confidently responded that she is proud of the work done, acknowledging imperfections but affirming she has no regrets.

When pressed further about specific mistakes, she mentioned an instance where a volunteer pointed out that they had mislabeled coins in an exhibit. They felt a bit embarrassed—but promptly corrected it, which seems like a reasonable response.

Hartig has been at the helm of the museum since February 2019, and the current Franklin exhibit, which has attracted significant attention, went public in 2021 and is set to remain until 2025.

According to a recent report by the White House, the National Museum of American History is viewed as a facility that has succumbed to what they call “ideological capture.” The paper noted that the museum seems to treat American history as a tool for political agendas rather than a shared national narrative.

As the report emphasized, it criticized the museum, stating it is compromised under its present leadership, and the portrayal of American history lacks integrity and unity.

In her testimony, Hartig acknowledged the White House’s report but strongly disagreed with its characterization of the museum’s operations. She mentioned the value and inspiration contained within the museum’s collections and emphasized a commitment to improvement.