Congressional Republicans are demanding records from the Smithsonian Institution after an inspector general identified weaknesses in its exhibition review process, renewing a decades-old debate over how the federally funded museum system presents American history.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — House Republicans have expanded their investigation into the Smithsonian Institution, demanding internal records after a federal watchdog identified deficiencies in the museum system’s procedures for reviewing controversial exhibits, including an installation examining the destruction of civilian homes during U.S. military operations.
The latest inquiry, announced Oct. 28, focuses on an exhibition at the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum in New York City and concerns about whether the institution adequately evaluates politically sensitive material before presenting it to the public.
Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., chairman of the House Oversight Committee’s Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, and Rep. Brian Jack, R-Ga., sent a three-page letter to Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch III, requesting documents describing the institution’s exhibition review policies and planned changes.
The lawmakers argued that the Smithsonian’s internal oversight procedures had allowed an installation originally designed to examine residential architecture to evolve into a presentation critical of American military operations.
Their investigation follows a June 2026 Smithsonian Office of Inspector General report evaluating how the Cooper Hewitt museum reviewed material included in its 2024-2025 Making Home—Smithsonian Design Triennial exhibition.
The watchdog found that the museum generally followed established review procedures but identified structural weaknesses in Smithsonian Directive 603, the internal policy governing sensitive or controversial exhibition content.
The report stated that the committee responsible for examining such material lacked formally defined responsibilities, authority and procedures.
“The SD 603 Committee’s authority, role, and procedures for reviewing sensitive content have not been formalized,” the report concluded.
The review also found that the committee lacked documented procedures describing how assessments should be conducted and what resources should support its work.
Although the findings identified procedural deficiencies, the inspector general did not establish that the entire exhibition was historically inaccurate or that Smithsonian employees deliberately violated federal law.
Nevertheless, Burchett and Jack cited the report as evidence that the museum system requires stronger oversight.
The lawmakers focused particularly on an installation titled Patterns of Life, created by journalist and data researcher Mona Chalabi and the Brooklyn-based design firm SITU Research.
According to the Cooper Hewitt museum’s exhibition materials, Making Home ran from Nov. 2, 2024, through Aug. 10, 2025, featuring 25 commissioned installations exploring the meaning of home across the United States, its territories and tribal nations.
The broader exhibition addressed domestic design, housing access, historical preservation, cultural heritage and community development.
The Patterns of Life installation examined the destruction of housing during armed conflicts, using architectural models and research data to portray the effects of military operations on civilian neighborhoods.
According to the House Republicans’ letter, an earlier version of the installation was intended to feature 10 New York City buildings within a single room.
The final presentation instead examined homes destroyed by American-made munitions during military operations involving ISIS and other terrorist organizations.
Organizers connected the installation to the concept of “domicide,” referring to the intentional destruction of homes and communities to cause human suffering.
The lawmakers objected to the suggestion that such destruction was intertwined with American military doctrine.
“The Subcommittee is concerned that the Smithsonian has cultivated a scholarly community that supports insinuations that the deliberate destruction of homes to intentionally cause human suffering is intertwined with the military doctrine of the United States,” Burchett and Jack wrote.
They argued that the Smithsonian’s review process should prevent exhibitions they consider politically biased or historically inaccurate.
The museum has not accepted that characterization of the installation as an established finding.
The controversy also involves a distinction between the scope of the entire Making Home exhibition and the development of one individual installation. The exhibition occupied three floors of the Cooper Hewitt museum and included numerous projects beyond Patterns of Life.
In responding to the inspector general, Smithsonian officials acknowledged the need to strengthen certain internal procedures while defending the importance of scholarly independence.
The institution stated that reviewing museum content requires balancing accuracy and public relevance with the freedom of researchers and curators to examine difficult subjects.
“We must meet our obligations of accuracy and relevance to the public we serve,” Smithsonian management wrote, adding that it must do so “without discouraging inquiry and the creativity of our scholarly community.”
The Smithsonian said some changes to its review procedures had already been implemented, while others remained underway.
The House Oversight lawmakers are seeking all Smithsonian directives, documents concerning revisions to Directive 603 and a timeline for completing those changes.
They also requested access to several collections of administrative, curatorial and policy records maintained by the Smithsonian Institution Archives.
The committee’s announcement set a Nov. 11 deadline for the institution to provide the requested information.
The latest investigation comes amid broader disagreements between the Smithsonian and President Donald Trump’s administration over how American history should be presented in federally supported museums.
On March 27, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History”, accusing federal cultural institutions of replacing historical objectivity with ideological interpretations.
“Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth,” Trump wrote.
The order directed administration officials to pursue changes at federal historical sites and work through the Smithsonian’s governing structure to address exhibitions considered inconsistent with the administration’s policies.
“To advance this policy, we will restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness,” the order stated.
Trump also criticized historical presentations at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia and the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington.
The White House continued its campaign in July 2026, releasing a 162-page assessment accusing Smithsonian leadership of presenting what it described as a politically distorted interpretation of the nation’s past.
According to ABC News, the administration’s report alleged that the National Museum of American History had embraced ideological approaches involving race, class, gender and sexuality.
The administration characterized portions of the museum’s programming as political activism rather than neutral historical education.
Smithsonian leaders defended the institution’s responsibility to examine the full complexity of American history, including subjects that generate disagreement.
Bunch, who became Smithsonian secretary in 2019 after serving as founding director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, maintained that acknowledging difficult chapters of the nation’s past was consistent with the museum system’s educational mission.
In September, Bunch announced his retirement following escalating disagreements with the White House.
“I have fought for as long as I can,” Bunch told ABC News in a statement.
His official retirement announcement said he would leave the institution by the end of 2026 after nearly 38 years of Smithsonian service.
Bunch also expressed his determination to defend historical scholarship.
“It is time for my next chapter, a chapter that will allow me to continue to protect the integrity of the Smithsonian and to champion the importance of a history that illuminates and celebrates the complex story of our nation,” he said.
The administration subsequently prepared warning signs for Smithsonian museums, including the National Museum of American History, questioning certain presentations of U.S. history.
According to National Public Radio, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum informed congressional appropriators that the proposed signs would address concerns about how the museum system interprets American history.
A letter from Burgum argued that Smithsonian leadership had transformed the National Museum of American History from an institution presenting a coherent account of the country’s past into one advancing ideological interpretations.
The dispute has extended to other historical subjects.
Critics previously questioned a Smithsonian presentation about Benjamin Franklin and electrical experiments involving enslaved people, arguing that claims about possible experimentation lacked sufficient documentary evidence.
Such disagreements reflect broader questions about the evidence required to present historical interpretations and how museums should explain uncertainty to visitors.
The controversy also predates Trump’s presidency by decades.
In the early 2000s, author and political commentator David Brooks criticized the National Museum of American History for what he considered insufficient attention to major historical events and prominent American figures.
Writing in The Weekly Standard, in an essay preserved by the Washington Examiner, Brooks argued that the museum neglected central events such as the Constitutional Convention and the Lewis and Clark Expedition while giving inadequate attention to Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr.
His criticism reflected concerns that museum exhibitions were emphasizing selected cultural themes at the expense of a broader chronological account of American history.
Debates over Smithsonian presentations date back further, including disputes during the 1990s over exhibitions examining American military history.
Those disagreements have involved competing expectations about the Smithsonian’s responsibility to commemorate national achievements while also documenting historical controversy, conflict and government actions.
The current congressional investigation adds a procedural dimension to those longstanding disputes.
Rather than focusing exclusively on the political interpretation of individual exhibitions, lawmakers are demanding evidence of how the Smithsonian approves potentially controversial material and whether its internal oversight standards are sufficiently detailed and consistently applied.
The inspector general’s findings provide documented support for concerns about gaps in the institution’s review procedures, while broader allegations that the exhibitions themselves are politically biased remain contested interpretations.
The Smithsonian has acknowledged the need for procedural improvements but maintains that its review process must preserve scholarly inquiry and curatorial independence.
With the Nov. 11 document deadline approaching, House Republicans are seeking additional records to determine whether the Smithsonian has adequately revised its policies and how controversial exhibitions receive approval.
The outcome of that examination could influence future congressional oversight of the Smithsonian’s federally supported museums and the procedures used to balance historical accuracy, public accountability and academic independence.
Original article
Comments