Rewriting American History: Examining the Smithsonian’s Efforts to Reshape the Past

The subcommittee on delivering government efficiencies will come to order. I wanna welcome everyone. Uh, without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time, and I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening statement. Before I do so, I just I'm probably out of order here, but I have some friends of mine from the Tennessee State Senate. I've been spent twelve years in that body and they actually do a lot of great things for the great state of Tennessee. So thank you, all gentlemen and lady, for being here. You're very welcome. Good morning. We're here to find out about how a once proud American institution fell victim to ideological capture and how to rescue it. The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History was opened in nineteen sixty-four to instill in Americans and foreign visitors alike an appreciation of this nation's distinctive heritage. and to celebrate its singular story as a beacon of freedom and opportunity. But the museum is strayed, I believe, from the original purpose for which it exists and receives federal taxpayers' support. I feel like it's become infected by a woke ideology that seeped into public displays, educational materials, and planning documents. The American story is the birth and growth of a great nation, founded on powerful ideals, on which we aim to fully achieve. But in the museum's current telling, History is just an ongoing power struggle between oppressors and the oppressed. Only the oppressed are celebrated, especially illegal immigrants. The museum promotes educational curricula that recommends teachers to avoid using the terms " illegal alien" and " illegal immigrant", while instructing them how to use the terms " gender fluidity" and " gender nonconforming". It hosts staff discussion groups on how museums can be used to foster social action against white privilege and hetero-patri- patriarchy. A museum display even accuses Mickey Mouse of having racist origins. The many examples of politis- politization of the museum are well documented in the Conference's report the White House Domestic Policy Council recently issued on July fourth the nation's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary. The report makes clear that the museum's woke exhibits and materials reflect a broader vision held by the museum leadership. particularly its director, Doctor Aletha Hartig, who is here today with us. Doctor Hartig proudly takes credit for changing the Am- Museum's mission statement which no longer uses the term "American history" or refers to the infinite richness of that history. The museum is now guided by an interpretive plan that ensures all topics focus on the core issues of our time. And do we wanna guess what they are? Race and identity, gender and sexuality, environmental change, immigration and migrations, and economic inequality top the list. Also, a center for restorative justice at the museum, created under Doctor Hartig's watch, hosted a decolonization working group to investigate historical harms that result in ongoing systematic oppression. To remove any doubt about her intentions, Doctor Hartig in her own words states that she views history as a prime tool of social justice. Here's a brief telling video uh the Director of Museum of American History in her public remarks repeatedly implies Americans are illegitimately occupying their own country.

Before we begin, let us pause to acknowledge with gratitude the native peoples on whose land we gather today. These are the ancestral homelands of the Piscataway joined by the Nakatch tank and the and the palmonkey tribes and of course their descendants we acknowledge the native peoples of more broadly of the americas wherever you are at this moment give thanks to the first people on his land we live love struggle and work at this moment give thanks to the first peoples on his land we're honored to live love struggle and work Wherever we're viewing this, let us acknowledge and give our respect and gratitude to Native peoples, for the opportunity to work and live in their territories. Wherever we are today, let us acknowledge and give our respect and gratitude for the opportunity to work and live in their territories. And we're deeply grateful and want to acknowledge and give our respects and gratitude um to them and to their ancestors for the opportunity to work in this territory. Um, let us join in acknowledging the layered complexities of our place, um, give our respect and gratitude to Native local peoples and the opportunity to live and to work and to study in their territories. So wherever you are at this moment, give thanks to the first peoples on whose land we're honored to live, love, struggle, work, preserve, care, and do our work. We give our respect and our gratitude f- to all

With that, I yield to ranking member Stansbury for opening remarks.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Today we are here because one of the greatest cultural and historical institutions in the world is under attack and is the target of an ongoing campaign to politicize America's independent scientific and cultural institutions by this administration. Let me be clear. The Smithsonian Institution does not belong to the president. It does not belong to a political party. It belongs to the American people. For nearly a hundred and eighty years, the Smithsonian has served as our nation's museum, our nation's research institution, and our nation's archive. It preserves more than a hundred and fifty million artifacts and specimens. It welcomes millions of visitors every year from every single congressional district, represented by the people in this room. It supports world-class scientific research. It educates future generations of American leaders. And it tells the story of who we are as a people, as Americans, a story that is not perfect. a story that is steeped in, yes, history, tradition, pain, and triumph. That has always been the Smithsonian's mission, to preserve our history, to advance knowledge, and to help the American people understand ourselves using evidence, scholarship, science, and the truth. The mission has never depended on whether history is convenient, whether it's comfortable, or whether you like it or not. It has always depended on whether or not history is accurate. But what we have seen since January of last year, when the Trump administration took office, is that this administration has launched an unprecedented effort to interfere in how American history is told, researched, interpreted, presented, and taught, not just in the Smithsonian, but in our schools, in our institutes of higher education, and through and across the federal government. In March of last year, the president signed an executive order called "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" directing the administration to review the exhibit of our beloved museums and federal historic sites and monuments for what it characterized as improper ideology. If that does not send a chill through your spine, I do not know what does. And they assigned the Vice President, J. D. Vance, because of his assigned role as the Vice President as the Board of Regents, for the responsibility of advancing these objectives. But I want to be clear, this order wasn't simply about exhibits, it was about exercising political control over historical co- scholarship. And what we saw earlier this month, which was just referenced by the chairman, is that this White House issued a hundred and sixty-two page report attack attacking the Smithsonian American history, accusing museum leadership of extreme political activism and calls for sweeping changes calling out individual leaders by name. That is not policy, that is a political witch hunt. The federal government is responsible for overseeing this independent institution And this should concern every single member of this committee regardless of party, because when politicians begin deciding what facts are acceptable, scholarship ceases to be scholarship, it becomes propaganda. Now we have seen this throughout American history. A lot of people are talking about the roots of what is happening in this country right now, is existing in other countries and other places and other authoritarian governments, but we have seen this here in America with the lost cause in the nineteen twenties and the attempt to rewrite American history and to whitewash the Confederacy and slavery. We saw this in McCarthyism here in this country when a president and a congress went after American historians, actors, and cultural institutions to rewrite the history of this country. We have seen it during this administration as they had frozen grant funding to institutions across the country. They have erased the history of our American service members on DOD websites, erasing the contributions of black, of Hispanic, of Native American, of women, of LGBTQ plus people who have served this great nation in the uniform. Now history, if you are a student of history, which is what the Smithsonian is all about teaches us why this is so dangerous. And I do not think that it is a mistake that the majority's witnesses in front of us in addition to the director are associated with the architecture of Project Twenty Twenty Five because it was articulated in that document and the institutions and the individuals who are sitting in the White House right now making these decisions that they want to rewrite the history of this country and take away the resources and leadership of people who have fought, marched, and served this country for generations so that they could lead in this moment and keep moving our country forward. And they understand that when you remove books, when you rewrite textbooks, when you pressure museums, when you silence scholars, you can do so to articulate power. Now this is why today I am introducing the Smithsonian Integrity and Historical Independence Act. It bars any federal official, including those in the White House, are trying to do this, from trying to interfere in the independent institutions of this country and the historic interpretation of our nation's history. And it reasserts our congressional authority over this independent agency. Now we have seen this over and over again during this administration, that they are trying to take over the independent entities and to assert executive control that even the Supreme Court just ruled a few weeks ago they do not have with the Federal Reserve. And once again they are trying to do it again here in the Smithsonian. But I want to be clear, we will fight, we will stop them, we will push back in the courts, we will push back here in Congress, and we will push back in our communities all across the country, and we refuse to let historians, artists, scholars, and people who love these institutions with their entire hearts to be punished by an administration that is trying to exercise political history, political control, and rewrite American history. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back, but I am disappointed after all of the bipartisan work that we have done in this committee to see this subcommittee used once again as a political tool for this administration and with that I yield back.

Thank you for your heartfelt comments. Um without objection, Representative Carlos Jimenez of Florida, Mister Frost of Florida, my buddy Quasi Mufumi of Maryland and and and Arianna Presley of Massachusetts are waived on the subcommittee for the purpose of questioning witnesses. today's hearing and others might come in as well. Um, I'd like to welcome today. I'd like to welcome our witnesses. First, we have Doctor Anthea Hartig. Doctor Hartig serves as the Director of the National Museum of American History at the Smithsonian Institution. Next, we have Mike Gonzalez. Mister Gonzalez serves as the pluribus unum senior fellow for the Catherine and Shelby Cullum Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Next, we have Doctor Matthew Spalding. Spalding serves as the Kirby Professor in Constitutional Government and Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College's Washington DC campus. Uh, last we have Doctor David Blight. Doctor Blight serves as Sterling Professor of History at Yale University. And I thank you all for joining us. I look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to cur- uh, Committee Rule nine G, the witnesses will s- please stand and raise their right hand. You solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. Let the record show the witnesses answered an affirmative and thank you all. You all may take a seat. We appreciate you all being here today and look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written statement and it will be appear it will appear in the full hearing record. Please limit your oral statements to five minutes. If you go over, I'll tap the mike, tap the the gavel so you'll know. As a As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of you so that it is on, and the members can hear you. When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After four minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your five minutes have expired, and we would like you to please wrap it up. I now recognize now recognize Doctor Hartig for her opening statement. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you, sir. Chairman Burchett, Ranking Member Stansbury, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I know this committee has questions about the National Museum of American History, and I welcome the chance to answer them. As an historian, I have spent my career studying, teaching, and preserving the history of the United States. My family has served this nation since the Revolutionary War, and I was raised with a deep sense of obligation to it and the democratic ideals that the country asks each generation to build and to uphold. Since twenty nineteen, I have been honored to serve as the Elizabeth Macmillan of your National Museum of American History, home of the Star-Spangled Banner. It is a true honor to serve alongside my devoted fellow public servants who staffed the museum, and I am immensely proud of our work. Congress created the Smithsonian Institution in eighteen forty-six with an aspirational mission of diffusion in knowledge. Can you imagine the increase in diffusion of knowledge? It is an independent, trust-led, instrumentality outside the executive branch of government and is governed by a board of regions that includes all three branches of government and nine citizen regions appointed by a joint resolution of congress the Smithsonian takes the concerns raised in the White House domestic policy counsel's report seriously and as we continue to fact-check the report we unwaveringly attest that it does not fairly or accurately characterize the full body of work at the museum. There is always room for improvement. But I also know the beauty and the inspiration and the expertise that lies in our collections, our exhibits, and our programming. When a family walks through the doors of the museum, free of charge, as two million people did last year, they find the desk on which Thomas Jefferson, to the Declaration of Independence, Horatio Greenauer's magnificent statue of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln's top hat from the night he was assassinated, the Greensboro lunch counter, the gowns of the first ladies, and the stories of Americans in uniform. They find the inventions that changed the world and the ordinary Americans who built it. I have watched ten year olds with their families stand in front of the Star Spangled Banner with their hands over their hearts. No one told them to. That is the National Museum of American History at its most powerful. Patriotism, not instructed but inspired. Our work is governed by the Smithsonian standards of scholarship, accuracy, independence, and non-partisanship. The museum does not take sides in America's political debates. We preserve and document the evidence. of American life in all of its breadth, so that the public can encounter the past and draw their own conclusions. We are also always learning when visitors, scholars, members of Congress, veterans, and teachers, volunteers tell us we've gotten something wrong or only half right, we take it seriously. And we make the changes when the evidence supports them. And when historians talk about reframing a traditional narrative, we don't mean erasing it. We mean adding the evidence, the voices, the objects that earlier tellings left out, so that more Americans can see themselves reflected in the national story. We honor the Declaration, the Revolution, the Constitution, our national symbols, and we tell the truth about the times that the country fell short of its own founding ideals. Telling our story fully is a form of respect for the American people, and a commitment to constantly being in pursuit of a more perfect union. I hope that you will judge this museum the way that the American people do, by what's on its walls and what's in its care. Please accept our sincere invitation. Walk the building with me. Stand in awe in front of the Star Spangled Banner. I believe what you will find, madams and sirs, is not an institution that has forgotten its country, but one that loves it enough to tell the full sweep of history, our triumphs and our struggles. I love the United States of America. I consider it the privilege of my career to help preserve its treasures and serve the American people. I'm grateful for the chance to answer your questions today. Thank you.

Thank you. I now recognize Mister Gonzalez for his opening statement.

Chairman, ranking member, members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. Following election day, twenty twenty four, Thomas Frank published an op-ed in the New York Times, suitably titled "The Elites Had It Coming". Here's where Frank, who's a liberal, wrote, "Everyone has a moment when he first realized that Donald Trump might well return, and here is mine." It was back in March, during a visit to the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, when I happened to read a text beside an old painting. It described the westward advance of the United States as settler colonialism. I knew instantly where this nation was going. Some curator at one of our most exalted institutions had decided to use morally loaded academic keyword to address a visitor to the museum, say a family from the Midwest, and teach them a lesson about American wickedness." Teaching lessons about American wickedness is now the mission of the Smithsonian. It is the intent of the leadership and it is precisely what they trained the staff to do. Secretary Lonnie Bunch, the third, Anthea Hardig, the director of the National Museum of American History and one of today's witnesses, and other museum leaders have commandeered the world's largest museum complex and admit that they intend to use it as a tool of societal transformation. This is not why Americans entrusted these institutions to them. Culture is not passed in the bloodstream. National museums are repositories of a nation's collective inheritance, so that it can be transmitted to future generations. However, the Smithsonian's leadership has subverted this mission. Under Doctor Harding, the History Museum has erased two words from the mission statement. The first is history itself. The word history had to go because Doctor Harding preferred the museum to be quote " very future-facing". The other word that disappeared in the new mission statement was America itself. Director Harding said the term America should include, quote, the entirety of the Americas, not just our part of North America. She also said that loving America is complicated. Doctor Harding, the Director of the National of the National Museum of American History, has deconstructed the museum's mission statement to borrow terms of the postmodernists who clearly got her work. We're here today, as you said, because on July fourth The White House released a devastating report focusing on the Anthro-Hartics Museum and the agenda that she pushes. Read the report and you will find that it is not just postmodernism that guides the leadership. To see the world in terms of power dynamics, who has dominance and how to wrest it from them by dismantling the American narrative. This is deeply Marxist and Gramscian. In fact, the action toolkit that leadership used to indoctrinate staff at the Smithsonian for years, even quotes approvingly from the works of the Frankfurt School's critical theorist, Herbert Marcuse. You can understand why Bunch began his tenure by adding the inst- by tying the institution to two ideological and destructive movements, the sixteen nineteen Project and Black Lives Matter. BLM's main s- BLM's main leader had made clear in two thousand nineteen that the group's goal was to quote "keep dismantling the organizing principle of this society", unquote. Yet in J- in July twenty twenty, as the country was burning, Lonnie Bunch wrote that he saw " a moment of promise and possibility". Bunch said that the Smithsonian's - the Smithsonian would legitimize the sixteen nineteen project except that historians from both sides of the spectrum decried the shoddy scholarship and inaccuracies of the sixteen nineteen project. For ideological reasons, Lonnie Bunch put the Smithsonian's reputation at serious risk. And Director Harding endorsed all of it, pledging to quote "work to reframe the traditional celebratory narrative of US history" unquote to force a quote " national reckoning". National reckoning? From a history museum? This erasure of American culture must end now. As Stanley Kurtz wrote last week, you can say that the economy and foreign policy are more important than these cultural battles. Over the long haul, however, that is simply not true. You need to clean house and relieve all Smithsonian leadership of their duties. Also, deauthorize the yet to be built Latino and women's museums, which will no doubt become two more incubators of anti-American grievances. We can see this in the precursor exhibits that they have had. Loving America is not complicated. Dr. Hardik is wrong. I implore you to do your jobs. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, sir. Dr. Spalding.

Thank you, Chairman Burch- Burchette. Uh, ranking members, stands for members of the committee. Uh, the National Museum of American History is one of the country's greatest treasures. Contains some of the most iconic artifacts of American history, Jefferson's writing desk, Washington's uniform, the mo- the great American flag that inspired the national anthem. But it no longer provides the story that makes those objects intelligible. Indeed, the National Museum of American History is no longer the nation's museum of American history. The White House domestic policy report, Saving America's Story, catalogs in great detail over a hundred and sixty pages and five hundred and twenty-two footnotes the many controversial and objectionable displays of the museum, but those details are evidence of a larger transgression. The real crime here, premeditated and followed through, is that America's story, the well-established narrative of main characters and key events long at the center of American self-understanding, has been so reframed, jettisoned, de-centered, deconstructed, and problematized that it no longer exists in any recognizable form. America's story has been replaced by an altogether new and controversial approach, defined by postmodern theories that see history as processes of oppressive power struggles, and use history as a tool to encourage social transformation. Now that might be an interesting abstract discourse for the faculty lounge, but it shouldn't be the rubric for the nation's Smithsonian Museum. The report concludes rightly, in my opinion, that the museum has become subject to institutional capture. That is the big picture, the forest we should not miss for all the trees. But don't take my word for it. The current director has said that at the National Museum of American History, we work to reframe the traditional s- silbutary narrative of US history. The Center for Restorative History at the museum describes its work as systemic intervention, instead of intended to transform the national historical narrative and restructure institutional priorities. The mu- museum's mission has been changed. Its previous muse- m- mission was to explore the infinite richness and complexity of American history, to help people understand the past. Its new mission is to empower people to create a more unjust, a d- a more just and compassionate future, by exploring the complexity of our past. As was noted, American and history are both gone, replaced by our past, and understanding is replaced by empowerment. This is not a history based on established facts and known reality. Indeed, it is not history at all. This is the very definition of an ideology, a systematic framework for interpreting society, challenging the social order, and instigating political and social action. This is not the purpose of the National Museum of American History. It is not the mission of the Smithsonian. It is not Congress's legislative intent. And it is not what taxpayers should be subsidize- subsidizing to the tune of a billion dollars a year. A National Museum of American History should tell the American national story. It should present the facts of history, what actually happened, as accurately as possible and with minimal present-day bias. American's history belongs neither to liberals nor conservatives. It belongs, as was noted, to the American people. It should be told, warts and all, so that visitors understand the basic chronological narrative and see how the nation got to where it is today. Nothing integral to that history should be erased or whitewashed. But social transformation should not be the objective. The National Museum of American History should tell the story of a nation and a people driven to overcome injustice and live up to its heritage, a story of imperfection, but also overwhelming accomplishment, of tragedies, but also great triumphs, of hardship, but also heroism. Over the course of our history, Americans have made choices, taken actions, sacrificed, corrected flaws, made a more perfect union, and struggled to live up to those principles. The outcome was never foreknown. But there remains a certain nobility about it. A healthy attachment to this country is neither blind to its flaws nor fanatical in believing that America is the source of all good. Nevertheless, each generation to be a should be equipped with the knowledge of America's principles and history, a reverence for their liberties, and a reflective love of their country. That patriotism must be strong enough and unsyndical enough to coexist with criticism, dissent, disappointment, and opposition. But it is love all the same. Without the civic foundation supplied by reflective patriotism, a s- a - a self-governing people, a republic will perish. A museum focused on claims of systematic oppression teaches national self-loathing. Why should tax papers subsidize a museum that teaches contempt for their country and reframes it past to serve ideological purposes? Such a museum is not worthy of a great country, should not receive the imprimatur of Congress, and is unfit to shape the minds and hearts of the American people. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Sproul and Dr. Bolle.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Madam uh Ranking Member and members of the committee. Uh, it's a very special privilege uh as a historian to have this opportunity to defend one's craft. As historians we often dwell in the past, and professionally we should. But in the spring of two thousand twenty-five, with President Trump's executive order, restoring truth and sanity to American history, and now with the White House's report saving America's story, the present has come storming into our work lives with vengeance, and we welcome the challenge. The present is inherently interwoven with the past. The White House now believes it should pronounce on the nature of history and the presentation of the nation's treasures at the Smithsonian. The recent report by the White House Domestic Policy Council is nothing than a declaration of political war on the historian's profession, as well as on the freedom and curiosity of anyone who reads or visits museums. In other words, President Trump has declared war on free minds and free education. Historians are not voices of the state. We are keepers of memory. And in our - at our best, we're storytellers with trained imaginations. And yet, they declare with such certainty what forms of, and these are the words of the report, heritage, destiny, settled truths, and indeed stories, that the Smithsonian should instill one of the report's favorite verbs in the minds of the public. Historians are now fighting back in the interest of scholarly history, well told, for the broadest possible public. Ours is a beautiful and ancient craft, essential for any society's need for self-understanding. We are equipped with a host of modern methods, but guided ethically by very old rules that no authoritarian political project ought to be allowed to profane. As historian, a historian reads, listens, searches, measures, imagines his or her way into and through all manner of evidence, facts, sometimes clear, sometimes slanted every which way. We examine, read, accumulate, sift, study these modes of evidence with hopefully empathy and humility. Then we rise up from all our data and our sources and all manner of context, and fashion all this into a story, into narrative, in order to inspire and take our audiences somewhere. And once we get them there, we are bound by our craft to make an argument about why this all happened and why it matters. People often comment on how Trumpism would like to return us to some version of the nineteen fifties, when America was great. In this report they have transparently done just that. The report is rooted explicitly in the Cold War of the nineteen fifties. In the founding of the National Museum of American History, its legislation and dedication speeches, the founding words and sentiments understandably breathed the rhetoric of Cold War triumphalism. How could it have been otherwise? The report offers no context for what might have invoked such expressions. The Soviet achievement of the hydrogen bomb, Sputnik, the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the March on Washington, and the assassination of President Kennedy. Had the Domestic Policy Council consulted trained historians, they might have provided some context. They might also have consulted Edward R. Murrow's famous commentary in nineteen fifty-four, the the year after the museum was conceived, on Joseph McCarthy and his assaults on free speech. "We can deny our heritage and our history," said Murrow. "But we cannot escape responsibility for the result." Erase McCarthyism and it will come back. Erase any other fifty difficult aspects of American history, they will come back. Triumphalist history cannot tolerate nuance, ambiguity, complexity. But they are lifeblood for real historians. Also, in a deep Cold War context, James Baldwin wrote in an essay entitled also nineteen sixty-two, "as much truth as one can bear that the problem with the way Americans approach history is that," quoting him, " words are mostly used to cover the sleeper, but not to wake him up." We do not write woke history, whatever that is, but we do try to awaken citizens. In recent decades, we sowed the wind, with new kinds of history, here comes the whirlwind. If we're not careful, we will end up with what the great writer Toni Morrison called statist history, and it will create what she called sanctioned ignorance. That's what's at risk. Thank you. Thanks, sir.

Uh, without objection, uh, my buddy Represen Represen Don Beier of Virginia has waived on the subcommittee for purpose of questioning witness to today's hearing.

Mister Burleson, you're so you're on.

And is Mister Burleson, he not here? Okay. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questions. Um. Chairlady Hartig, is that what we call you? Or director?

Doctor. Doctor.

What, director or doctor? Your doctor? Okay, you got director, I'll be a doctor. I am I am a director and a doctor and I'll call you the doctor. You earned it, I'll give you the title. it's very nice. How about that? Yeah. One time made the mistake of calling a coach mister and he reminded me he was coach, so you earned that title and you get it. Uh, I I I do appreciate your constant uh land acknowledgements that were in the film. I'm wondering, have you ever planned on dating any of your personal property or property of the Smithsonian to the, any of these tribes?

i don't believe that's pertinent to the conversation sir

well i mean you you you you say that every time you open your um your meetings apparently and i was just curious of that acknowledgement if that was something you were you were planning on doing uh should the american history museum be the site that focuses in on what we have in common the shared national heritage of great ideals and revolutionary events

yes sir at the national museum of american history we strive to create a museum where our visitors will be inspired by the collections programs and exhibitions and they will choose what they each will do to keep our american democracy strong and vibrant and they'll play that chosen part with passion. That is our hope.

OK. I do think that most Americans would disagree with you on the most impor- what the most important issues are. How did the museum determine those core issues of the day?

So the the S- the M- the Smithsonian and the museum are committed to rigorous fact-based museum quality experiences. and to tell the full and rich story of America in in a way that enlightens and welcomes every visitor. We use historical evidence, competing perspectives, and acknowledge enduring debates, so that visitors can understand how we've wrestled with democracy and citizenship and liberty and national identity. So in our work to document the stories of all Americans throughout time, we really do hope that they, everyone who comes in can see themselves reflected.

Okay, gender and sexuality are highlighted by your museum. Um, the poster behind me shows an exhibit called Entertainment Nation on display now. Do you think these exhibits behind me are appropriate for children?

So I recognize some of the um the images from entertainment nation and from i think some other sources but let me i think tell you what i think is most important about

ma'am ma'am i mean you have

yes

pictures of bondage you have some overtly sexual things up there you have transgendered folks i assume that's what they are um that's very cool and some i don't care who it is I don't care who it is, it's still

You have a genitalia?

not a fan, I can tell you that. But in another exhibit a six year old girl asked why she doesn't have male genitalia. Do you really think that content is appropriate for children? I mean do you think little, little girls have penises?

So

I mean, let's get to the basics of this, do you think that's appropriate?

So, sir, I believe the exhibition and project you're referring to is girlhood it's complicated which was a temporary exhibit in our museum that closed i believe in twenty two yeah

ma'am i'd i didn't ask you that i asked you do you think it is it appropriate

yeah so in that exhibit sir with permission of the author we shared a thirteen year old's

mmm

diary which i believe is what you're discussing and in that diary they wrote about sleepovers and latin class and math exams and also they're also they're wrestling

ma'am do you think that's appropriate i appreciate this we're limited on time ma'am do you think that's appropriate Do you think that is appropriate for a child to see,

Yeah.

yes or no?

I understand your question, sir, but I

No, you don't. You're not answering, you're just running on, ma'am, and I appreciate your your hospitality, but the reality is you are not answering the questions. You are funded by taxpayers and the taxpayers would like to know, is that appropriate?

So, Sir, Girlhood, It's Complicated was not designed for children. It had a label in the beginning of the exhibition that shared with parents about some of the topics

alright well thank you ma'am i understand you're not gonna answer and i'm gonna run out of time but given some of your previous comments including america was founded based on the supremacy of white men loving america is very complicated america's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary is worth problematizing would uh Why should you, do you think you should continue leading the National Museum of American History?

It's the honor of my career to serve as the Elizabeth McMillan Director of the National Museum of American History.

Thank you, ma'am. We're out of time.

Thank you, sir.

All right, the next, Mister Lynch from Massachusetts.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. First of all, I wanna thank the witnesses for attending and to help the committee with its work. Um, I'd like to level set this hearing, though, so I'm gonna ask you as, uh, in in this Discussion about our history. Uh, Doctor Harding, who who who won the twenty twenty presidential election? Please, I only have so much time. Is that a tough question?

Good good morning, sir. No, it's not a tough question. Uh, Joseph R. Biden won the election,

Great.

like the election of the college votes,

Mister Gonzalez?

yeah.

Biden was president from tw- twenty twenty one to twenty twenty uh four.

Who who won the election, sir? I'm just trying to test Where you're coming from.

Biden won the election.

Excuse me?

Biden won the election.

Okay, mister, Doctor Spalding?

Oh, Joseph Biden.

Thank you. Doctor Blight.

Joe Biden and Donald Erd?

Okay, great. Thank you. So, uh You're all keenly interested in in preserving uh American history. I heard from all of you that uh you care about the facts, the evidence, the narrative. Um, you know, as an Irish Catholic from Boston, um, I was in the third grade when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And uh the nuns in our school made sure we understood everything about JFK's life. Uh, you know, he was, a lot of people don't realize he's the only president to ever receive the Purple Heart because of his his heroism in the Solomon Islands during the Second World War. Um. And importantly, he and and Jacqueline Kennedy were the principal founders of the the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. And much of the drive came from Jacqueline, to be honest with you, but but the president and the first lady raised all the funding for the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. And in and in his life, you know, and at the end of his life, President Kennedy sacrificed everything, everything for this country. And you know where I'm going with this. The current president came in, having nothing to do with the establishment of that, that institution, and put his name above, above John F. Kennedy. on the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. As an Irish Catholic from South Boston, that was stolen valor. That was stolen valor. He had nothing to do with that. And it was distortion of history. To someone who who visited that for the first time, they would not know, they would not know the history of that building and the fact that it's the only building in the United States Capitol that that honors Kennedy's Memory and his legacy. Kennedy sacrificed everything. You know, he inspired me to get into politics. Doctor Blight is, is, let me ask you, is is distorting that in in in in in that stolen valor, renaming that building, changing the history of that building with no with no basis for doing so. Is that is that a distortion of of our history as well?

Of course it is. Erase it. Sorry. Of course it is. Erase it and it will come back. On that day I was in Mister Barron's ninth grade civics class. When he went to the door to get the information that Kennedy had been shot and he addressed the class to tell us the president was dead. I will never forget that.

Yeah.

And what a great museum does. what a good class does, what a historic site does, is it simply inspires a sense of history. Why the past matters.

Yeah.

You could not have been in a school room that day and not had a sense of history. It certainly was part of mine.

Right. Thank you. You know, I understand, you know, sometimes political correctness can can can act as censorship Or it can distort uh it can distort the h- the history and and and and and I you know the way we view the world. And I understand that, I understand that, and I I understand some of the some of the pushback i- i- is about perhaps the censorship that that is present in in political correctness. But then the facts are the facts. Dear God. You know, the president, you know, continually goes back to twenty twenty election to say that he won it. And we should stand together and reject that crap. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, sir. Yield to Mister Clout from Texas.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Director Hardig, I've visited as I have many times, the uh Museum of American History. Um and what I think I find most troubling is the fact that you can do a lot with real history. Um and and what's concerning is the distortion I think of the truth and in the context. And just for example the American democracy, a great leap of faith, you know this exhibit you turn the corner and the first thing you see uh is this it's a wall and the two words of course that pop out are privilege and slavery now is that a part of American history sure should it be covered up no uh but what makes America unique and exceptional isn't for example the fact that slavery was a part of our history it was a part of almost every nation's history what makes America unique is the fact that we worked to overcome it uh and and we're leading on the world stage in in getting rid of it Um, and as I walk through, you mentioned as you walk through the doors, you'll see Thomas Jefferson desk, you'll see, you know, Abraham Lincoln's top hat, and those are in the museum, yes.

Mm-hmm.

But that is not what you see when you walk in. What you see is exhibits to, uh, social reform. You'll see, uh, displays in the end caps or the, uh, the, the display, the glass displays on the side, uh, pictures of drag show or pro-abortion language and all these different kind of things i i'm curious you know i was really surprised as we're celebrating the two hundred fiftieth uh anniversary of our nation uh how did we come up with the two hundred fiftieth anniversary like what are we celebrating in the two hundred fiftieth anniversary

thank you sir and thank you for your visit and um we've hosted i think since january twenty five senators and house members that's great

and ma'am i know your intention today is to filibuster the entire time

yeah

There's a particular document that was signed on July fourth, seventeen seventy six, uh, for which we celebrate. Could you

Absolutely, sir. So, when you come into the museum right now, since the

That would be the Declaration of Independence, ma'am.

Yes, sir.

I was surprised to find that in the Museum of American History on the

And so when you

two hundred fiftieth year of our anniversary there's not an exhibit for the Declaration of Independence. Now sure there's Jefferson's desk and it takes up a very small space in a Right, but you would think. I I went through the museum looking for the words " we the people".

Mmm.

And you would think when you walked in that would be the biggest, boldest thing, especially on the two hundred fiftieth anniversary, the idea of " I pluribus unum", where out of many become one. That's what makes America unique. Uh, and yet your take seems to be to take the uniqueness, the unity of America, and and and to try to divide us up into different things. Why, uh who who made the decision? not to have a display for the declaration of independence on our two hundred fiftieth anniversary.

So, sir, I'm gonna go maybe back a few beats and answer your your I think your first question of the four. So the declaration of independence of course um signed and ratified on July fourth and seventeen seventy-six in Philadelphia appears on a full wall in the Price of Freedom, our history of the military, on our third floor eastern wing, it's a it's a blow up size.

it's a it's a standard exhibit it's it's there in the back but you have to walk through a bunch of junk to get there as a matter of fact right right now there you would think and then it's in the it's in the linda is it if i may

no not not exactly

yeah

i'm happy to answer your question sir

this this would have been a great time to pull out all the artifacts i i i thought let me look and try to find something on john adams you know and i'm not saying it's not there but it's hard to find uh john adams john j caesar rodney we could talk about christoph atticus phyllis wheatley the poet lord of american revolution all these different kind of thing what would you say is the most influential book in american history

So if I may go back to your second question.

What's what's what did you say is most influential book in American history?

May I go back to your second question?

Uh, you can answer the one I just asked you.

Yeah.

Well, I you know, as a historian it's probably hard to choose which is the most influential book in United States history but I can tell you what's the most influential document, and that is the Declaration of Independence which appears in different ways at least four or five times in

Most influential book. The founders quoted one book more than any other book.

the founders were very well read and as you know Thomas Jefferson's library became the core of the library of Congress.

Y- yes, and that book would have been the bible. Secondly, would have been Common Sense by Thomas Fey. Now I went to the bookstore, I couldn't find Common Sense in the bookstore. I did find, you know, these books, uh here's George Takei, it rhymes with Takei, uh a book in which um he talks about, you know, one young man lusting after another. I'm not sure why this is in our American History Museum, in the kids' section, mind you. That's that you think is important to have in an the American History Museum?

So George Takei, as you know, the actor from Star Trek, um was incarcerated uh during World War Two as the result of executive order nine zero six six.

Yeah, you're

And his children's book I think is a beautiful story.

Who made the decision to put that in there but not common sense?

Especially with uh Senator Alan Simpson. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Subramanian.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chair. Uh, so we're here for a s- a a hearing entitled Rewriting American History, Examining the Smithsonian's Efforts to Reshape the Past. And this was in response to a domestic policy council report that domestic policy council is a a part of the White House. And what's interesting is that, uh, I was looking back, this seems to be one of the only domestic policy council stand-alone reports this year. In fact, perhaps this administration. The only one I could find was the last one they did on the national report on paper straws. And so this is how our domestic policy council is spending its time, at a time where we have higher costs across the board, where we have, uh, a war going on in the Middle East, and where we have, uh, people hurting every single day. losing their access to health care, losing their access to food assistance because this domestic policy council recommended it be cut. That's where we are right now, and uh I think it's really important uh, Mister Gonzalez, uh I wanna go back to a quote, you quoted Stanley Kurtz in your opening saying, you can say that the economy and foreign policy are more important than these cultural battles over the long haul, hap- that's simply not true. Do you stand by that, that these cultural um, battles are more important than our economy and our foreign policy.

Oh, absolutely, yes. I think it was Lincoln who said, " No, no soldier, no foreign soldier is gonna take a drink from the Mississippi."

So, so you think that So you think that this, this particular hearing on what the Smithsonian, where the Smithsonian is putting Thomas Jefferson's desk is more important than people facing higher utility costs?

That's not how, what the report is focused on.

Well, that's what, that's what you just said. That's what the,

No, no, no, no, no. The, the report is not, no.

you just said that the, the cultural battles are more important

Yes.

to you and more important than the higher costs of living that Americans are facing today.

Over the over the long term they are, and it's not about where the where Thomas Jefferson's desk is.

Interesting, because I I I think the I think the president would agree with you. I I think this administration would agree with you, and that's how they've acted. I'll be and so let's just talk about the report since uh everyone wants to be here to talk about it, it seems. Uh the report actually had a a lot of things that weren't true. For instance, uh the opening of it talked about how the Um, the the Smithsonian wasn't speaking enough about America two fifty, but I looked at the Smithsonian's website and the first thing it talked about was America two fifty uh Director Hartig did did the Smithsonian talk about America two fifty?

Yes, sir, we've been planning for years to celebrate the semi-quincentennial and it's an honor to do so.

And and the report complained that Thomas Jefferson's writing desk and George Washington's uniform were not on prominent display. Were they on display at the American History Museum.

Yes, sir, and then we're honored that the Jefferson's writing desk went over to the Smithsonian castle to be part of Secretary Bunch's American Aspirations exhibition.

And then it said it didn't uh have quotes from the Declaration of Independence. I guess they were nitpicking about one specific sentence. Did are are quotes from the Declaration of Independence on full display at the at the museum?

Yes, sir.

Okay, so it seems like it wasn't a very good report either, but I looked back and they by their admission it was a months-long report involving multiple staff. Uh, Mister Gonzalez, how much money do you think that report costs, the American taxpayers? Cuz you're at the Heritage Foundation, so I know you care a lot about American taxpayers.

I have no idea.

You have no, you didn't ask about how much the report actually costs? No one looked into this?

I think it would be hard to assess,

It'd be hard to assess, okay.

given all the input that went into the report, how much it cost.

I asked, asked um AI and they said probably millions potentially,

Okay.

yeah.

But, but, yeah, probably.

So because of staff time, because of outside

I, I would advise against using AI, however.

uh consultants, yeah, okay.

I'm just kidding.

Well,

It it it hallucinates a lot.

sounds good, well, s- I'd ask somebody because you didn't have the answer to it.

Yeah, it hallucinates a lot.

Yeah, sounds good. Well,

Yeah.

um, the other thing is do you think, uh, there should be mentions of, of Trump's impeachment at the museum?

Um, sure, but ma- I mean, yeah, it happened, it's history.

Yeah. Do you think there should be a wing of the museum dedicated to President Trump?

It, I d- I have no idea, I'm not a curator. I don't know whether there should be a wing dedicated to President Trump.

Doctor Spalding, do you think there should be a, a wing of the museum dedicated to President Trump?

I don't think there should be a wing dedicated to any one president.

Okay, interesting. Even George Washington?

Uh, I think in the context of what he did in terms of the American Revolution, the revolution, that kind of thing,

I- I think what's actually happening,

yes.

it's not that you don't want ideology in the museum, it's that you want your ideology in the museum. And you want the museum to reflect your values, your specific views on things, and not the views of what actually happened, which was the facts.

It's

And so that's what we want, is we want the facts in the museum, we want people to come away with patriotism because they will. if you show them the facts of this great country. And so I

I I completely agree.

applaud for everything that's happened in this first two hundred and fifty years of America the good and the bad the bad wouldn't have led to as good as what we've gotten and I look forward to the next two hundred and fifty years and I look

A hundred percent.

forward to teaching my kids and grandkids the facts I yield back.

We agree. Great.

Thanks, sir. Mr. Nice from South Carolina.

Hi, good morning, ma'am. Since we

Answer the question, how many kids?

Good morning, ma'am. Since we don't charge, we're don't have an accurate

Are you the director of the museum?

I am, ma'am.

Okay, and you don't know how, how many people visited the museum last year?

Two million.

How many of those were children?

Ma'am, I don't have those exact figures for you,

Don't even know. Okay.

but I'm happy to take that back.

Uh, do you agree that educating children about American history is a core duty of the museum? Yes or no?

Absolutely.

And are images of sexual fetishes appropriate for children? Yes or no?

So ma'am, we

It's a simple yes or no, or it's a sexual imagery,

I understand.

provocative sexual imagery, appropriate for kids. Yes or no?

Ma'am, we strive to represent all Americans in the

You strive to represent queer,

fullness of the American people.

pedophiles, indoctrination, grooming of kids at an American History Museum, and it sounds like you're proud of it. You won't answer the questions, probably because you're ashamed, and as a woman, I really can't believe you will stand, sit here today, and you can't even admit that sexual imagery like this behind me, they tell me, my staff tells me, this little trinket around the penis, this is BDSM, in a uh, in a setting where children are walking through. That's disgusting. Like what kind of message are you trying to send to kids with BDSM imagery? What is, what are you trying to tell kids? Are you sexualizing children? Is that what you're, you're motive is for the museum? Why?

So that's specific to peace, um, program.

Do you know how many kids get raped by adults every year in this country?

Um.

This kind of thing, when you are dressing men up as women, drag queens, you're putting this kind of crap in front of kids, sexualizes them, and makes them more vulnerable to people that want to rape them, or abuse them. Or when we have men and women settings, uh that wanna do harm to to women. Um you talked about the girlhood exhibit and you didn't wanna answer the chairman's questions earlier, uh but it was a diary featuring a six year old, a six year old, that reads, everybody was talking about getting boobs and their period, I pray to God every night for my penis to grow. Daughter, can you tell me, look me in the eye and tell me that that belongs in an exhibit for kids.

Ma'am, girlhood it's complicated, was not an exhibit And the diary.

I know, you had the little disclaimer thing, which is a sort of a beep.

Right, the diary was of a thirteen year old going through puberty.

Okay, do you think that's an appropriate thing to put in an American history museum where there are children walking through?

So

We're talking about American history.

Right, so, girlhood, it complicated, it's complicated.

Okay, I'm moving on because you just they've I don't know how

It's bored.

much money you spent on getting prepped for this hearing. They did a good job because you're filibustering and not answering a single question from a single Republican. Today, um, do you believe that men can become women?

Ma'am, as the director of the museum, that's not relevant in this case.

It's very relevant. You're, you're, you've got men dressed up as women, and you have them on displays in front of kids. Do you think men can become women, yes or no?

So, Rupaul's drag race, which is the upper-level age

It's a man. Rupaul is a man who dresses like a woman, literally.

Right. Right. Correct.

Um, what is a woman, Doctor Hartig?

As a director and as a historian, it's not my opportunity.

You sexualized the American History Museum, so this is a fair question. What is a woman?

So at the museum,

What is a woman?

we we strive to represent and not categorize all Americans.

Okay, I have another question for you. There's a glossary at the museum that informs visitors that while American culture traditionally recognizes two genders, other countries recognize three or more. So enlighten me this morning. How many genders are there?

Ma'am, which glossary?

This is, okay, this is a display and it has a glossary that says other countries recognize three or more genders. So I would like you to enlighten me today. You're the director of the American History Museum who has sexualized things in front of kids. I wanna know, I wanna ask you, how many genders are there?

So first of all,

How many?

How many?

How many genders are there?

I'm not sure.

And what are they?

I'm not sure which glossary you're speaking of.

Of course, I know that you don't. You know exactly what this hearing was about today. Uh, one of your exhibits at the American History Museum says sometimes gender isn't revealed at birth. So when is gender revealed?

So,

When was your gender revealed to you, Doctor Hartig?

as So I don't really think that's relevant to the conversation,

It is relevant. You have a display.

yeah?

at the Mu- American History Museum talking about gender isn't always revealed at birth. So when was your gender revealed?

So, since I am a PHD and

I wasn't done yet, but I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.

not a medical doctor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Mace.

Mister Walkinshaw.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm I'm actually glad we're having this hearing

Thank you.

today of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency Cuz finally we have abandoned the pretense that this subcommittee has anything to do with government efficiency. Just like Elon Musk's doge wasn't about efficiency, it was an ideological purge of the federal government, this assault on the Smithsonian has nothing to do with efficiency. It's an ideological effort to quote Mister Gonzales, a cultural battle. But let's go ahead and talk about rewriting history. Let's talk about it. Because that's what the Trump administration is doing as we speak. It's Jackie Robinson. Before he stepped on to Ebbets Field, he wore the uniform of the United States Army. He broke Major League Baseball's color barrier in nineteen forty-seven. He didn't just transform a sport. He challenged one of the last great institutions of legalized segregation in America. He helped move our country closer to the promise talent and character matter more than the color of your skin. I guess for President Trump's Department of Defense, he was part of the DEI problem we've heard about today. Because he got erased, removed from the website, cancelled, restored only after public outcry. The Tuskegee Airmen flew more than fifteen thousand combat missions during World War Two escorting American bombers over Europe. They didn't just help defeat Nazi Germany. They helped to dismantle segregation in the US armed forces. Somehow, they're also part of the DEI problem we've heard about today because they were erased. The Air Force removed a documentary on the Tuskegee Airmen from their course instruction. Navajo Code Talkers. Young Navajo Marines developed an unbreakable battlefield code that Japanese forces couldn't crack. It helped American forces win some of the toughest battles in the Pacific, saved countless American lives, also apparently part of the DEI problem because they got erased. Now the Trump administration and my Republican colleagues are focusing their anti-DEI erasure efforts on the Smithsonian. Last week they released this report we've discussed today, saying the museum has been captured by quote " extreme political activism." It's pretty extreme, deleting Jackie Robinson. Why the report? Because the museum tells the full American story. It examines slavery alongside liberty. It discusses immigration alongside citizenship. It recognizes the struggle for civil rights alongside our founding ideals and, yes, the flaws of our founders. But according to this administration, that's not patriotic. They erased Jackie Robinson. They erased the Tuskegee Airmen. They erased the Navajo Code Code-talkers. And now They wanna take their big orange eraser to a proud American institution, the Smithsonian. We should reject this effort to erase our history because in America, the truth has always been our strength. It's not a weakness, Mister Gonzalez and Doctor Spalding. Doctor Blight, can you tell us the damage that is done when history, Jackie Robinson, Navajo code talkers, Tuskegee airmen is erased from websites, from course instructions. How does that hurt America?

Well, if you want inspiration from history, you can't start any better than this. Delete Jackie Robinson and he'll come back. His name was Hank Aaron. Uh, his name was Frank Robinson, his name was Bob Gibson, and I could name a thousand more. uh, good luck trying to delete anything that people really care about in our history. They're gonna find out about it, and uh the fact that you can even delete it is something they can take, because they have some faith in institutions like the Smithsonian, which they love and wanna go to, will bring that story to them. What's lost is uh curiosity, understanding, You know, uh our job as historians, um, is to understand the dead. Sorry, you become relevant when you're dead. Uh, but the reason we un- wanna understand the dead is so that we can really understand the living. And to delete the dead, because somehow they don't fit a category that we like in the present, is to soil the present.

Thank you. Uh, you're back. Mister Gale from Texas, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing, uh, and to the witnesses for taking the time, uh, to travel all the way out here. Director Harding, thank you for being here. Um, would you say that - that the goal of history, even if it's not properly carried out, would you say that the goal of history is to be objective?

Thank you, sir, for the question. You know, I think that there are many goals of history and certainly as you collect, as we do, examine evidence, create scholarship,

Is objectivity one of the goals of history?

interesting. Uh, we strive to be objective and non-partisan, and not based on any ideology.

So it's one of the goals. Doesn't that seem a little bit concerning? It it certainly does to me because as part of this white supremacy document that your organization has promoted, objectivity is a core and defining aspect of white supremacy culture. Do you think that it's the goal of the Smithsonian institution to promote white supremacy culture?

Sir, do you mind sharing with me which document?

It's white supremacy culture right here. Um, this is part of the mass action tool kit that your organization

Mmm.

Are you promoting a white supremacy culture at the Smithsonian?

Am I promoting a white

Ma'am, is this a difficult question?

No, sir, I'm just thinking about the mass action toolkit. We didn't develop it. But, um, back to your question, no, we're not promoting any ideology.

Does it concern you that your goal is objectivity one of your goals is objectivity and your mass action toolkit references objectivity as a defining characteristic of white supremacy culture

it's not our toolkit

it is your toolkit you um you've been promoting it for quite some time

we did not come up with a toolkit sir

but you've been promoting it

it is used as a reference i believe probably in twenty nineteen twenty twenty

yes under your leadership it has been used as a reference

um

Um, is Mickey Mouse racist?

Mickey Mouse is not racist.

It's not racist. No, sorry. According to the Smithsonian uh institution, one of your exhibits repr uh referenced Mickey Mouse is representing, quote, vestiges of long-standing traditions of blackface minstrelsy. Would you describe that as racist?

No, the historical trajectory of the origins of of of Mickey Mouse tied directly uh true

so Mickey Mouse is is rooted in racism is that your testimony

no sir it's rooted in minstrelry

min minstrelsy and you don't think the blackface minstrelsy is racist

it had certain an obvious racial overtones that have been well documented and are rather

you think that that's problematic that Mickey Mouse also has those racial overtones

it's not for me to determine what's problematic it's determined to me what's accurate

is that right um is it important to be polite

yes sir excuse me sir

is it important to be polite

Yes, sir.

It's also interesting because the same mass action tool kit that your organization has been promoting references politeness as a defining characteristic of white supremacy culture ma'am are you a white supremacist?

Hmm, no, sir.

You're not. Can you help me square why your organization says that being polite is part of being a white supremacist?

I'm not exactly familiar with that passage of the mass action toolkit, which is not one that we developed.

I'm I can show you the passage. It's right here.

I don't Pardon me?

I said I'd I'd just read you the passage from it.

And then your question was, sir?

We're gonna move on. Um what is what is Latina power?

What is Latino power?

La Latina power.

Latina power would be the the forces um derive from being a latina

do you think that it's appropriate for the smithsonian institution to sell latina power paraphernalia hats mugs other things that say latina power

i believe that the merchandiser store sells tries to reflect

i'm asking you if it's appropriate

tries to reflect the richness of of the communities

so so your testimony is that it is appropriate

those are your words sir

i'm asking you is it appropriate to sell latina power paraphernalia it's a yes or no question

i don't have control over what is sold on our stores

i'm asking you if it's appropriate i didn't ask you if you have control over it is it appropriate

i understood you sir yeah

yes or no

again we strive to represent all americans and including in our merchandise

is it appropriate yes or no

we strive to represent all americans in our museums including in our merchandise

is that right my time's up

yes sir thank you sir

thanks sir Mr. Mofumi from Maryland.

Chairman, a UC request.

Yes.

Asked unanimous consent to enter into the record a Newsweek article from March nineteenth twenty twenty five titled Jackie Robinson ar- Army Jackie Robinson's, Army history deleted by Pentagon.

Sword. Anything else? Mr. Mofumi, you're recognized.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Uh, I only have five minutes, so I'm going to try to make the most out of it by making some very clear points. Black people across this country are outraged at what is happening now with these efforts to do away with the African American Museum and all of this Smithsonian. They're outraged because they've lived too many years, been through too many struggles, suffered too many bruises, and clearly have very, very, very little to show for that sojourn here in this country. I wanna be real clear about this. If you erase it, we will replace it. It's that damn simple. We don't seem to learn. If anything, we should be looking at history to learn and to make sure that we are taking advantage of what we've learned. You know, it was Abraham Lincoln in eighteen forty eight who addressed his countrymen in Edwardsville, Illinois, and he said, and I quote, When you have succeeded in dehumanizing the Negro, when you have put him down and made it but for him to be, but as the beast of the field, when you have extinguished his soul in this world and placed him where the ray of hope is blown out, as in the darkness of the damned, are you quite sure, he asked, that the demon you have roused will not one day turn and renew." He said, " What constitutes the bulwark of our freedom and our independence? It is not," said Lincoln, " our crown and battlements. It is not our armies and our navies. It is not our bristling seacoasts." For all those things are not our reliance against tyranny, because they can all be turned against us without having made us weaker for the struggle. Our reliance, he said, as Americans, is in the love of liberty which God has planted deep within all of us, regardless of how we look and where we come from. He said our reliance is in the spirit of freedom, which prides itself as the heritage of all men in all lands everywhere. And then he admonished, "Destroy that spirit, and you would have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doorstep." Ignore, he said, the chains of human bondage and you prepare one day for your own limbs to wear them. A custom, he said, to trample on the rights of other people and you would have lost the creative genius of your own American independence, and as such would become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you. Sounds familiar? History taught us and still teaches us that we can't keep making the same mistakes. So I know this is a big discussion about a lot of aspects about the museum. But I'm here as a black man who grew up in segregation, who wasn't allowed to go certain places, who drank from a water fountain that said " colored", who found his mother and his father unable to do anything other than basic day work, And if for no one else, if for them and their spirit and all the other nameless and faceless black men in this country and black women who made their bodies bridges, that some of us could get to the university, that some of us could get to a good job, that some of us could get to the United States, if for no other reason, I want this to go out loud and clear, and I'm not speaking just on behalf of myself. I know that I speak on behalf of so many people who are not here today. We will not let you destroy that museum. No matter how long it takes, how many battles are required, how much effort is needed, we will not allow that to happen unless you find a way to kill all of us and walk over our bodies to change history. That history is too sacred, it is too precious, and it will not be erased because, as I said, If you attempt to erase it, we will continue to replace it over and over and over again. I yield back, Mister Chairman.

Thank you, Mister Mifumi. Uh, Mister Burleson, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Director Harding, what do you believe is the core purpose of the National Museum of History, of American History?

Thank you, sir, and good morning. The beauty, I think, of the museum is to truly take the over two million objects we have with the best scholarship around them

What is the core purpose? What is your what is your mission? What's the core purpose?

and to tell the richest story of America's past that we can. Our mission is to empower people to create a more just and compassionate future by preserving sharing and exploring the pl- the complexities of our past.

Okay. In your twenty twenty-four presentation, you said the museum changed its mission in part to help people get out of the America quote unquote America first mentality. So my question is what's specifically wrong about the American first mentality?

So we changed the mission like most organizations and corporations do when I came, that we had an expired strategic plan and we created a new mission. The

So is it okay is your contention that you just changed it because you just needed to change it? Under your

No, most directors were saying this.

I'm asking specifically, you made the statement that you have to get out of the quote-unquote America first mentality. What did you mean by that?

I'm not sure which of my public, um, appearances you're referring to, sir.

Director Hardik, let me ask you, are you America first?

I'm a very proud American.

That's great to hear. Um, do you love America?

I love this country unconditionally.

That's that's great to hear. At one point you stated that loving America is very complicated.

Mm-hmm.

Um, let me ask you this, recently we had visitors all over the globe for the World Cup. What what I think is the common thread that we saw across all social media platforms was an astonishment and disbel- you know, astonishment and amazement of things that, preconceived ideas that they had about this country. Um, some of those preconceived ideas were that Americans were dangerous, that everywhere they would go there would be shootings and people, um, you know, all - all of the crime that would occur. There were preconceived notions that, uh, Americans were all hostile and xenophobic, um, that - that Americans were - that everyone is living in poverty unless you're rich. Do you think, I mean, uh, after this happened, what do you think caused the rest of the world to believe all of these ills about the United States of America, these falsehoods about this country.

You know, the World Cup was was truly remarkable in terms of how it brought everyone together. Um, I'm I'm unsure what they what they were using as their basis for that, those conclusions, sir.

Well, some of our people are spreading false information about the United States. Right? And you say you love this country, America's first. You proud of America's history?

Absolutely, warts and all.

Okay. So Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of the world saw the r- the the history of the United States as being the one the c- the country that led the world through economic prosperity particularly after World War Two with the Marshall Plan, led multiple nations out of prosperity.

Absolutely, sir, and in our Mars Hall of American Enterprise, which tells the the amazing story of American business, they'll they see this just that.

Wouldn't it be great if we ha- if we, the rest of the world saw thus as what we truly are is the w- the co- the one country that led the world and inspired them to eliminate slavery, to eliminate all of all of the all of the genocides that happen.

Absolutely, and I think when they come through the museum overwhelmingly, wherever they're from, you know, from uh, you know, from Nashville, Tennessee to Nome, Alaska, they come out and they say they come out more. inspired, warm and creative.

So what was the origin of that? What was the origin of what created all of these great things that inspired the rest of the world that lifted people out of poverty that ended genocides or at least inspired the world to to end their genocides? What was the what was the original precipice of that? What was the original beginning?

So the revolutionary era, of course, with its brilliant founding documents, with um the declaration of independence with that sword, those Soaring paragraphs.

So I think that what we're trying to to compel what what I'm trying to convey is that

Is the origin.

when the rest of the world is having a hard time with disinformation, there's enough negative things that are being said, you would think the one institution that would be trumpeting the the the the great and wonderful things that this country has done, especially at a time when we're celebrating the two hundred and fifty year two hundred and fiftyth anniversary of this country would be to showcase that, to showcase our founders. And that's and then with that I yield back.

Yeah. Thank you, sir, and absolutely I agree.

Thank you. Mister Frost from Florida, you're recognized, sir.

Thank you, Mister Chair, you know, I gotta say, listening to this hearing, I think many of my colleagues would benefit from actually stepping foot in the Smithsonian institutions. Maybe not just reading talking points from the White House or reading what what uh what they're supposed to say. I've been in these museums. I mean, talking about the National Museum of African American History and Culture, specifically, it tells the whole story. The ugly and how America and Americans came together to get rid of slavery, to fight Jim Crow. But it tells the whole story. So, I, I May- maybe this committee should do like a, a field trip and actually go through these institutions to actually see the full story be told, because I would contend that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have never stepped foot in many of these institutions, at least not in a long time. Director Hartig, thank you for being here. Um, can you please share a little bit about your experience as a historian?

Oh, thank you. Thank you, Mister Frost. Um, I came to history as an undergraduate. I thought I was going to be an English major, but I took my first history class and I was rowing crew for UCLA at the time, and I hoisted my ten speed, my shoulder, and I walked up the stairs to the history department. declared that I wanted to be an historian, and since then as a public servant, uh and as a public historian in which we look at archives and material culture, and museum work, and historic preservation work, I've s- been completely motivated to figure out how then I can best serve the nation, and being the Elizabeth McMillan Director of the museum uh certainly is the highest calling.

Yeah. Thank you. Mister Gonzalez, are you a professional historian?

No. Actually Actually I have been paid by publishers to write history, so I am.

Okay, how many exhibits have you curated?

Oh no, no, I'm not a curator.

Okay, how many exhibits have you curated? It's a separate question.

I I haven't curated any exhibits because I'm not a curator.

Okay, thank you. Doctor Hartig, tha- thank you, you haven't uh curated any exhibits, thank you.

Yeah.

Uh, Doctor Hartig, um, is your work partisan?

No, sir, our work is not, we don't seek. to advance any political agenda.

Yes, ma'am. Does the museum take political sides or have a political agenda?

No, sir.

Does the museum have exhibits that challenge people's views, or may make them feel uncomfortable?

History is incredibly challenging, and by the by then its very nature, if we tell it in its richness, we absolutely I think have objects that can make people uncomfortable and, you know, I hearken back to secretary Bunch's words that he was told by a sharecropper that you know tell the people both what they want to hear and what they need to hear so i think

mmm

depending on where you are certainly there can be a level of discomfort

thank you what review process does the museum use before opening an exhibit

so the museum goes through a a rigorous scholarly presentation of the way in which exhibit objects and stories and interpretation relate to one another. That's reviewed extensively. Um, also depending on the size of the exhibit, um, our In Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness exhibition, our two hundred fifty object exhibition for America two fifty, uh, went through exhaustive review with also peer reviews as well. Then it is is, uh, presented up to the undersecretaries, uh and often the secretary in conversation with our review.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, director. Mister Gonzalez, who should decide what's in a museum?

Um, I would say that the curator, but also overseen by the leadership of the museum, the the taxpayer does spend one point one billion dollars in the Smithsonian, so the Smithsonian is accountable to the American taxpayer.

All right, thank you. I have a yes or no question. Should exhibits capture American history as it happened without bias?

Yes.

Was slavery a part of American history?

Yes.

Was Jim Crow a part of American history?

Yes.

Is it important that museums discuss these topics at length, so people understand the gravity?

Absolutely, yes.

Do you believe that American art should be consistent with the Trump administration's cultural and political goals?

I have no idea what what what that that is. I cannot comment on that.

Do you believe that American art Or do you believe that the Smithsonian's goals should be consistent with the Trump's administration's cultural and political goals?

I don't, I, again, you're, I don't know how you define that. I cannot answer it.

You seem to have a long-standing personal vendetta against the Smithsonian that started well before the White House report. And I ask you those questions because I'm concerned about censorship. I'm no historian either, just like you. But I know that Nazi Germany weaponized art and museums had demonized certain groups. Doctor Blight, if Congress or the White House is start starts deciding historical interpretation, how is that different from political censorship?

It is political censorship. It is political censorship. Um, and, uh, their model may indeed be, uh, Joseph Goebbels's committee on enlightenment, which is what the Nazis called their committee that tried to control museums. I'm sorry, sorry.

Thank you. I yield back.

Does the chairman have a UC request?

Fine.

Here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to enter into the record as unanimous consent, a Reuters article from January, twenty twenty five. Trump's anti-DEI order yanks Air Force videos of Tuskegee airmen and female pilots.

So ordered. Mr. Fallon, text as you recognize.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Director Harding, you hold a very prestigious position. Uh, it's an awesome responsibility, we're honoring American history, and we have a rich history in these past two hundred and fifty years. In two thousand nineteen when you took the, did you take the job in nineteen, was that right, is that right?

Good morning, sir, and yes, I did.

Morning. Okay. And what it was your pay then? How much did they pay you?

My starting pay was three hundred thousand dollars.

And what's it today?

Um, it is about three hundred and seventy thousand dollars, which is Paid from an endowment, not federal funds.

OK, but you do agree that you work for the American people.

Every day, sir.

Alright, and uh all of them, even the ones you disagree with.

We welcome everyone to the museum.

All of them. Alright, wonderful.

Yes.

Are the majority of the funds for the museum paid for by the American taxpayer?

So of the Smithsonian's appropriation, for which we're very grateful,

The major- the majority is?

yes.

Yes.

Oh, he just gives you a limited time.

So yeah, so if I may, sir, so our alleg

Thank you. Well, again, sorry, we we have very limited time, but it's a majority.

I appreciate that.

Alright, we agree there. Webster's, I looked up the definition of history, cuz it's very important in our conversation today. And it's a chronological record of significant events, such as affecting a nation or an institution, often including an explanation of their causes. And as such, I think we hopefully would all agree that you need to take great care when presenting history it needs to be fair and balanced and as objective as any human being can be, to and for all Americans and not colored with uh, you know, we don't wanna color the museum uh in our history with your personal beliefs biases ideology and preconceived notions and i think it's important to take that step back and present a uh present a comprehensive look at american history that displays all of it good bad ugly triumphant etcetera director do you believe you've done that these past seven years

yes sir to the best of my ability

uh john smithson when he donated i think it was in eighteen twenty six when he donated his fortune He said it was to increase in diffusion of knowledge among men. I think we'd all agree, people, now. And the precursor to your museum was the National Museum of History and Technology, and that's important for a minute. And they wanted to always focus on the story of American progress. Director, do you love the United States of America?

I do, unequivocally, and

Wonderful. I do as well, we agree. And on balance, do you believe the United States has been a force of good in the world? On balance.

United States is the world's longest consecutive running democracy and is

So I would take that as a yes?

truly remarkable country.

Again, just because we limited time, yes? So two out of two, okay.

Yes, sir.

And you believe we still are today?

Pardon me, sir?

And you believe we still are today?

Absolutely.

Yes, wonderful. So United States, would you agree with the statement that we're the greatest nation history has ever known?

I think that I would refer judgment in terms of the progress that we've made.

All right, so I gotta take that as a no because

No, sure.

You did not. Not not t- not unlike race,

To the best of my knowledge.

gender, climate, climate change, immigration, economic equality, technical. All right, well, two hundred fiftieth anniversary. We agree that America is two hundred fifty years old.

Absolutely.

Um, as far as a focus and highlight for uh the two fiftieth did you have any new exhibits on george washington

so we have

again i i i apologize just because we have such a limited time do you had did you did your

about twenty five mmm

museum decide to say hey you know it's the two hundred fiftieth anniversary we're gonna feature george washington

we do feature george washington

yeah can somebody take this yeah

yeah

i don't mind

we feature george washington

no but did you had do you have you're not answering the question i'm so sorry

yeah

Did you have any new, the two hundred fifty anniversary, and you decide as a board, we're going to have a new uh exhibit that highlights and focuses and uh celebrates George Washington.

We highlight and celebrate George Washington, yes.

So you d- you didn't have any new ones.

It is a new exhibit, so

If you have a new one just for George Washington on,

in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

for the two fifty, great.

He's

How about Thomas Jefferson?

d- he is predominantly both in and of

Yeah. Ma'am, I I, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.

Mm.

We have very limited time. How about Thomas Jefferson? Did you have a new exhibit on Thomas Jefferson for the two fifty?

We had a new exhibit that included Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,

But you didn't f- solely focus on Thomas Jefferson.

John Adams.

How about Ben Franklin?

Pardon me?

Did you have a new exhibit on Ben Franklin?

We had a new exhibit that included Mr. Franklin,

All right, so on the founding fathers.

Dr. Franklin.

How about great inventors, uh, great American inventors, any new exhibits on that?

We had a new exhibit that included many great American inventors.

A brand new one for the two hundred and fiftieth?

Yes, sir.

Yeah, like Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Nicholas Tesla, Eli Whitney, John Deere. Did you also have one that uh celebrated a twelve day pride celebration and create a special display honoring a queer Mexican and undocumented man?

For the two hundred and fiftieth?

Uh, did you do that this year?

No, sir. No, sir.

Uh, you're on the road.

To the best of my knowledge.

You're saying that you didn't do that. Okay. All right, my time's up.

We

I yield back.

Thank you. Miss Presley, you're recognized.

Thank you. Our shared American history, our shared American history is under attack. Donald Trump is working overtime to turn our museums into instruments of MAGA propaganda. Rather than places where American people and visitors from around the world can encounter our factual history. I had the privilege uh this weekend of visiting the Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee as Smithsonian affiliate. And uh and what I I took in there was factual, it was powerful, it was equal parts devastating, and also instructive, which is why people are working so hard to erase it. And let me just be clear, try as you might to erase black history and to erase black people, you cannot erase us. But I digress. The work of our museums is so very important. Uh. Doctor Harding, that work deserves visibility, gratitude, protection, not vilification and threats. Since taking office, the Trump administration has become synonymous with fascism. While there is no one set definition, historians have generally agreed upon several characteristics. Doctor Blight, uh you were selected to be the president of the Society of American Historians, so I'm gonna ask you to keep me honest on this. Now what I've learned is that fascism usually inclu includes elements like undermining fair elections, a constant targeting of vulnerable people and labeling them as enemies, and an overwhelming amount of government corruption. Sounds eerily familiar, a damning and devastating deja vu, the moment we find ourselves in right now. The element I want to focus on today is the fascist hostility to our history, academia, museums, and the arts. Doctor Blight, looking at history, why do fascists and autocrats attack cultural institutions like museums?

madam congressman it's because they believe that's where you can control people's minds you can sustain a social order you can control education you can control the arts you can control writing and creativity itself it is not just the nazis there have been plenty of other neo-fascist or fascist regimes that have attempted to do that

uh-huh thank you thank you doctor yeah this is a this this anti-freedom agenda. They wanna control what books we read, uh, uh, what is in our museums, what we do with our bodies, attack the free press, degrade, uh, free speech. It's an anti-freedom agenda. Doctor Bligh, what warning signs do you look for when society starts drifting towards fascism and authoritarianism?

First I look for the breakup of political parties. Then I look at, I look for this kind of assault. on cultural institutions, on things like the National Park Service, which reaches more students than any of us who teach in universities. Um, I look for attempts to control the media, uh, which is the dissemination of knowledge. Uh, and, uh, I look for any attempt at the control over free minds, free speech, freedom itself.

Thank you. History gives us a chilling example of what happens when a government decides it alone will define what counts as good art and acceptable history. I've heard the stories passed down in Jewish families of Germany in the nineteen thirties as the Nazi regime consolidated political power, it turned its attentions to museums and to galleries. The regime started with criticism labeling art as degenerate, and claiming it didn't fit with the national culture. But then they started attacking museum directors and curators, and eventually art pieces were confiscated from museums and locked away or sold in nineteen thirty-nine Nazis publicly burned thousands of paintings that they couldn't profit from. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum details much of this history. Fascist attacks on museums are not just about history. Today the occupant of the White House labels entire aspects of American history as quote unquote divisive, and uses the power of his office to pressure the Smithsonian to remove, whitewash, and to rewrite our stories. I'm not here to exaggerate, just to educate. And what is spurring this all on? What fuels this? Fear of a black planet. Fear of a multiracial democracy. The occupant of the Oval Office, Project Twenty Twenty Five, this cult of MAGA, they are fueled by fear and hate. Doctor Blight, when people see the warning signs that you mentioned, why is it important that they speak up and take action?

Um, well, it's important because if the people don't stand up, they lose these institutions. And as you just suggested, the black world came to America. Uh, I wonder if uh, I wonder if people notice that uh the world is black and brown, and the teams from European countries were black and brown. And uh, we ought to take some lesson from that, and by the way, to that point earlier, sorry, that uh, they were getting disinformation. Well, who were they getting the disinformation from? And uh, let's remember what fascinates the world about America.

is our contradictions.

Your your time's up, sir.

So fascinating. Thank you.

I'm sorry. Your time's up. Uh, Mr. Jack.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, my first question is to Mr. Gonzalez. I appreciate your testimony today. Um, we've heard some pretty concerning things throughout this hearing. I'm curious from your perspective, what's fueling this ideological takeover of many of our institutions?

Yes, uh, thank you, uh, Senator Jack. Good to see you again. I agree with Doctor Blight, the fascist try to seize the past to control the future, but it really is a the the trademark of Marxists. This is what Marxists do. Uh, I think that people who want to truly transform the country, seize the cultural institutions in order to mold how people think. This is their own words. Uh, the leadership of Smithsonian says constantly that it wants to use the museum to transform America for societal transformation. They see history itself as a tool, an instrument, to - to - to change society. So, you only have to quote what they say they want to do.

What would you say are the most egregious examples of this takeover that you've seen on display at the Smithsonian?

Well, we have - I think we have gone through many of them here. Um, I w- Let me correct the record because it was said earlier that the mass toolkit was not produced by the Smithsonian. And on page sixty-four, it says that it was co-authored by half a dozen current in for Smithsonian employees, the fact that the staff of the Smithsonian is trained uh uh you know was was trained for four years after for three years after the Smithsonian apologized, I think that's pretty damning. It was trained for four years on how to use history to transform America. I think the the the the fact that the for example on the on the Franklin exhibit, they pondered whether he had ever done um experiments electrical uh uh electric shock on on indentured servants or h- or or slaves, without producing any evidence whatsoever. I think that is pretty shocking. Why smear a founding father such as Ben Franklin with, by by pondering such a such a what such a really s- bizarre thing?

Well said. Director Harding, I'm curious, we've heard a lot of concerning examples as just reference. Do you have any regrets in your tenure thus far of some of the exhibits that have been displayed? Do you regret any of the exhibits, and if so, which?

Good morning, sir. I am incredibly proud of the work we've done, but we are imperfect, and we surely have made mistakes, but I don't have any regrets.

Which mistakes would you say you've made?

There are always factual errors. One of my favorite currently is that one of our volunteers has pointed out that we've been mislabeling a coin in the American presidency exhibit for years and we were of course you know slightly embarrassed about that but we fixed it.

Have you had any negative feedback from Secretary Bunch or others in leadership about some of the exhibits we've discussed today?

Secretary Bunch and the members of leadership and I talk about many things, including our exhibitions.

Has there been any frustration exhibited about some of the exhibits that have uh happen under your control?

We talk about many things and we've talked about the challenges of being an historian in these times, absolutely.

So one of the things I find interesting, and I'm gonna take that as a an evasive answer, um and I would submit for the record if if you wanna say uh Secretary Bunch has criticized you it's helpful for us to hear that but if not um we'll let that go. Um I'm curious if you could explain for us the six O three review process, and I think this committee is very interested in

Certainly, sir. Thank you for the question. Um, I think it started in nineteen ninety-five, Smithsonian Directin Directive SD six O three requires all of our work to go through a really very rigorous review risk assessment. Uh, most recently it was updated um last summer, um enhanced by the regions.

So when an exhibit goes on display, it's peer-reviewed, there's a lot of input about the exhibit from people that are on staff within your purview?

Absolutely, and then it's reviewed by a higher committee of undersecretaries.

Would you be willing to submit some of those review processes and likewise some of the content within it to this committee for review?

I'm happy to check with our general counsel and get back to you.

Mister Gonzalez, in the remaining time that we have, I'm just curious, um, what do we do going forward? How do we resolve this? How do we this, cuz it's clearly a problem, it's dividing our country, what's what's the path forward?

Um, I'm saddened to say that you do need to clean out house at the Smithsonian. You have to replace the leadership. I don't think the six O three review process is gonna fix anything. I don't think trying to reform with the present leadership is gonna do anything. They're committed to the things they wanna do, we only have to listen to what they say and look at the evidence of what of what they have produced. I think they, we need, you need to work with the Board of Regents to effect this change.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I go back.

Thank you. Miss Crockett, Texas, you're recognized, ma'am.

Thank you, Mister Chair, um welcome to the Republicans' white pride rally disguised as a congressional hearing. It might be uncomfortable for some people on this committee to hear about the true history of America, and I hate that for for them, but facts are facts, and it's a fact that there is a violent discriminatory, sexist, and racist part of American history, where our indigenous populations were forcibly displaced from their land, where thousands of black people were unjustly lynched, where black people were denied the right to vote and they still trying to do it today, where women needed their husband's permission to open a bank account, where people with disabilities were routinely excluded from schools, workplaces, and public life, where four little black girls were murdered by the KKK at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, And a lot of this wasn't that long ago. In fact, three of those little girls would be seventy seven and one would be seventy four. More than forty members of Congress serving right now would be older than them. Ruby Bridges, who was the first black child to desegregate an all white school, is only seventy one years old. More than a hundred members of Congress serving right now are older than her. So attacks on the Smithsonian or any other institution that's willing to tell the true history of America It's not only an attempt to rewrite history, it's an attempt to erase history. So, Doctor Blight, if Republicans are going to ban books, penalize schools and universities, attack museums, if states continue to change curriculum, where do Americans go to learn about the complicated, sometimes racist and violent parts of American history?

Thank you for the question. I think they will have to keep going to the same institutions, and we have to keep fighting to preserve what we are doing in those institutions. They have to keep going to public schools, they have to keep going to the public libraries, they have to keep going to the the great Smithsonian. Uh, look, the purpose of history is to enlighten us, inspire us, trouble us, bother us, sometimes make us angry. I find it hard to believe that a young person could go through the museum of of American history and not come out at least in

Thank you so much.

Mm.

In fact, that takes me to Doctor Hardik. Um, they accused you and the Smithsonian of sowing division in this country. However, before the White House deleted it, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security found the biggest domestic threat to the United States is violent white supremacists. So I have a couple of questions for you. First, to the best of your knowledge, has the museum ever been linked to any violent act that has occurred in the United States or against the US government?

Thank you, ma'am. Not to my, the best of my knowledge.

I don't think many of these white supremacists can even read, but to the best of your knowledge, can you identify a single artifact in your museum that would divide the country.

To the best of my knowledge, ma'am, no. I hope that they unite the country through a shared understanding of our past.

Do you think or do you ask the political affiliation of any of your employees before you hire them?

Absolutely not, ma'am. It's against the Hatch Act of nineteen thirty nine.

I'm glad that you know the law, but nevertheless. Uh, do you ask if they've donated to political campaigns?

Absolutely not, ma'am. It's against the Hatch Act of nineteen thirty nine.

Uh, we need a briefing in this building. But nevertheless, uh, do you only hire non-white people?

No, ma'am.

In fact, almost sixty percent of the Smithsonian's total workforce is men and more than fifty percent is white. Ninety percent of Smithsonian employees making senior level pay are white, and sixty percent of them are men. I don't understand this fetish that these white guys with fragile egos have with trying to feel oppressed. It reminds me of the same people MLK was referring to when he said, quote, "they believe that American society is essentially hospitable to fair play and to steady growth towards a middle-class utopia embodying racial harmony, but unfortunately this is a fantasy of self-deception and comfortable vanity." I wanna go back real quick though, Doctor Blight, cuz you talked about the World Cup. The World Cup that uh that captured the imaginations of the entire world when they saw all of these people of color that was playing for all these teams and ultimately, if you recall, the last two teams, it was Argentina and Spain, and it seemed like the vast majority of the world was rooting for Argentina or actually against Argentina, right?

I've

And why was that? Just give me a explanation if you could guess. if you'll just let them finish the answer.

Spain had the best team. Maybe that's why they were rooting for them.

There's also a racist history that exists as it relates to urgency.

Mister Beier, Mister Beier, you're recognized.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff, Miss Crockett.

Mister Chairman, thank you for letting me wave onto the committee, and Mister Chairman, thank you for that uh sort of exaggerated opening video of Doctor Hartig, which I thought simply and respectfully recognize that our European ancestors and the African slaves they brought over came to settle and claim lands that had been home to earlier immigrants, those we call Native Americans, that came between fifteen and thirty thousand years ago. Yeah, Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel points out that our virus and bacteria killed the majority of them. And then we proceeded to take their land, killed hundreds of thousands, and we moved them out of the reasons in which they lived to reservations in South Dakota, Arizona, and other places. And we have the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, the Sandy Creek Massacre, the California Genocide, and the forced boarding schools. Doctor Harding, why did you think it was important to offer a small amount of homage, homage to those who'd lived here before we came?

Thank you, sir. It's a practice that I believe in to acknowledge the layered complexity of our land and where we're standing and all those who have come before us and an an honor to recognize the first peoples of the United States.

Thank you. Mister Gonzalez talked about quote " the erasure of American culture". I feel, especially listening to all the wonderful people today, that nothing be further from the truth, cuz it's all an effort to tell all of American stories. Doctor Spalding said, " Tell the American national story". I mean, yes. Um, I love America. Director Hartig loves America. Doctor Blight. Lonely bunch, but we don't pretend that we were perfect. It says, you know, that we form towards a more perfect union. Um, Doctor Blight, you you talked uh the most memorable phrase today was sanctioned ignorance. What would Doctor Hartig's museum look like if we suppressed everything that makes us uncomfortable?

Well, it would be a a nice pleasing uh stroll through a museum and not much to talk about Uh, it it is it is, Frederick Douglass once said, " America is its contradictions, all made up of its contradictions." And as a former slave, he understood that. Um, hi- the purpose of of exhibiting history, of representing history, is not just to show the good and the bad, that's of course true and everyone here has said it, but it's to stimulate our curiosity, to ask a question that we haven't asked before. to confront us with evidence we haven't seen before, a story we never knew. That's what a museum should do. That's what people will then talk about as they leave. If all they learn is a patriotic story, then frankly, professionally, curators and historians have not done their jobs. We do not serve the state. We serve the practice of the creation and dissemination of knowledge.

Thank you very much. Dr. Harty, you've taken a lot of heat today for saying that uh your love for America is complicated. Um I'd argue that all love is complicated because we're not perfect and the people we love aren't perfect but can you see your complicated love also being unconditional? And what did you mean by complicated love?

Sure, thank you, sir. The the placard that was held up in uh uh March during the summer of twenty twenty,

Thank you very much. Mister Chairman, you're back. Mr. Chairman, you're back.

Thank you, sir. Um and I would like to enter Saving America's Story for the record. No objections. Um Miss Sandsbury, you're recognized.

All right, well, it has been an interesting hearing, as these hearings always are, and so I have a lot of ground to cover. I wanna just start out by Mister Chairman inviting you to invite the entire committee to go down to the Smithsonian Museum the American Smithsonian is a mere two miles from here, and I'd also like to invite some of my colleagues if you wanna come over, we can watch Drag Race, we can have some cocktails, I think you will have a different opinion once you watch it. Okay, but let's talk a little bit about the museum. I heard the testimony from the majority's witnesses today and I have to say I think probably most Americans with all due respect sirs would have no idea what museums you're talking about because That is not the museums as they are presented, and I think that as many of my colleagues have stated today, if any of our colleagues had actually stepped foot in these museums in the last few weeks or months they would actually know what's inside these museums. In fact, I go on a regular basis. I went twice over the last week. And I am curious, though none of my colleagues have stuck around to actually hear the rest of this hearing how many people in this room have actually been to a Smithsonian museum in the last month or two. Audience? Oh, okay, all right. We got some people in here. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues who felt this hearing was so important to schedule, didn't even bother to wait to the end to answer the question, maybe because they couldn't. Now, let me take you on a very quick brief virtual tour of the museum, since we can't physically go over there. This is the star-spangled banner. This is the American flag that is famous. It is one of the most prominently exhibits at the American History Museum. This is Abraham Lincoln's hat. This is the desk that the Declaration of Independence was written on. If you had been to the Smithsonian Castle for the two hundred and fiftieth birthday, which I was just a couple of weekends ago, it is right as you walk in. So to our colleague that didn't know it was there, go over to the castle. This is of course R two D two, Star Wars, we've got some Star Wars fans, ruby slippers. This is the first Wright flier, the Wright brothers, and of course, this is the command module of Apollo eleven, which was instrumental in the first landing on the moon. That is American history, and this is what's featured in the American history and other museums of the Smithsonian. And so notwithstanding this crazy report that just got added into the and notwithstanding the insane testimony we heard today, I really do encourage every single person in American across the world to come visit one of our great uh greatest institutions in this country. Now there was a lot of conversation today about what do race, gender, identity, culture have to do with the American story? That is the American story. We are the greatest nation on planet Earth. We are diverse. We are. We are filled with every language, every culture, every people on planet Earth who come here to aspire to the freedoms that are protected in that declaration and that constitution that is featured prominently in the Smithsonian Museum. But our museums are also keepers of our story in all its complexity, in all its pain, and they are there to also reflect who we are as people. So if there's merchandise that celebrates being Latina, count me in, I want some, I'm gonna go down and get some. If there's merchandise celebrating the LGBTQ plus community, is that appropriate? Yes. It is appropriate because this is our country and we all belong here. And our colleagues don't get to decide who belongs and does not belong in this country and whose history and whose culture and whose identities belong in our institutions. You get to decide that, the American people. And if my colleagues are so concerned about protecting children from sexualization, how about you arrest some of the criminals in the Epstein case? Maybe the president himself. If you're so concerned about the well-being of children in this country, how about you vote no against the bills that are trying to gut our education system? the bills that are trying to gut food assistance, the bills that are gutting health care instead of voting in favor of them. If you actually care about the children and people of this country, then let your votes and your actions speak for you. And vote no against the ninety-five billion dollar package you're trying to move this week to send more of our children into war in an illegal war. Now, we don't have time to close out this hearing with a proper closing, but I just wanna say to my colleagues who came to share their stories, their hopes, their dreams, and the importance of these institutions, and to all of the American people out there, we will fight for the independence of the Smithsonian, and we will not go back. Period.

Thank you. Co-chair, I'll recognize Miss Boebert from Colorado.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, uh Director Hartig, um you you've said that history is a prime tool of social justice and that museum um that the museum works to reframe the traditional celebratory uh narrative of US history i- i- isn't that just a polished way of saying that you intend to use a taxpayer-funded national museum to push a racial narrative? uh that divides Americans by their skin color and by guilt.

Good morning ma'am and thank you for the the questions. I have said in a number of of my talks that I grow I think increasingly confident that history can be a tool for social justice.

So you're using taxpayer funded dollars to um divide our country by yase racism and guilt.

No ma'am, I'm using The power of history to

Madam Director, you you changed the m- the museum's mission away from preserving and presenting American history toward empowering people to create a more just and compassionate future. Who gave you the authority uh to turn the National Museum of American History into a vehicle for progressive political activism?

So the Smithsonian is a nonpartisan institution. We're very proud of that.

Who decides what is just, ma'am?

I hope we can all agree that we want a just and compassionate future. We do so by preserving and sharing the stories of the past.

And are you rewriting that history, or no?

No, ma'am.

So you are the one who is over all of this. You are the director.

I am.

And it seems that you have the the authority to decide what is what is just and what is compassionate. Um, what about the tens of millions of aborted babies? um the babies that have been killed in America, uh where where's the justice and the the compassion for them?

Ma'am. I believe in a just and compassionate future.

Is is it just is it just and compassion compassionate to abort tens of millions of babies?

I'm not here at this hearing to discuss that.

Where's their history?

I am not here at this hearing to discuss that.

Is that not a part of our American history? Did that not happen?

I am not sure I'm the right to discuss that.

Or is it only what you care about? Is it only the issues that you care about and you being cushioned by white privilege and being propped up by your whiteness, as you claim, I'm paraphrasing? I i- is that what you care about, just racism and and making people feel guilty?

No, ma'am, I care about the full richness of the American past. Since seventeen seventy six there's an estimated three billion people who have been here. So it is the honor of my life to try.

There's over fifty million babies that have been aborted

It's the honor of my life to do my best to tell the American authorities.

in American You m- Director, you've said that loving America is very complicated. Is it complicated to love your country?

I love my country unconditionally, ma'am.

And, okay, so the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the declaration, um, you said that, uh, that should be problematized.

Yes, when histor- I did, and when historians use That, it means to add new stories and think about it different ways.

What about when you use it?

Pardon me, ma'am?

What about when you use it, director?

When I use it I mean to add new stories and think of new objects to tell the American story and all its richness in seventeen seventy six.

But you're not going to include the babies that were killed. We can't think of those stories, those new stories to to share with American people?

Ma'am, we are going to use the two million objects in our

Mm.

collection to tell the American story as fully as we can.

There's over fifty billion more you can add to that. When I I believe when when the director of American's America's History Museum finds it complicated to love her country and wants to problematize its founding, um, it I I believe that that's the definition of undoing the our shared national story. Would you agree?

No, ma'am.

Hmm. Your museum has minimized or contextualized the founder's uh uh uh primarily through slavery and exclusion while elevating narratives of conquest, systematic injustice and resistance. Is there any version of the American founding you consider worthy of uncomplicated celebration? Or is the entire project irredeemably tainted by your view?

Mmm. So the founding, excuse me, The founding era of the nation occupies twenty-five thousand square feet in our museum. So I'm incredibly proud that we tell the stories of the founding.

Is there any, is there any part of it that is uncomplicated, or

Oh, some of it's incredibly sweet.

I, uh, would we celebrate without complication?

Absolutely, ma'am.

Okay.

Time's up.

Mister Chair, I

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

ask for unanimous consent. I unanimous consent to enter into the record an opinion piece authored by Witness Professor Blight, and published in the New York Times titled " Trump is bending history to his will. He will fail."

Darn damn it, so ordered.

So ordered. This time I've been advised not to do this, but I'm gonna do it cuz he's my friend. Um and without objection, Mister Jackson from Illinois is waived on the subcommittee for the purposes of questioning the witnesses of today's hearing.

Thank you, the Honorable Chairman, Mister Tim Burchett, my friend. Thank you, Miss Dansberry, and all the uh panelists that have come today. I have enormous concern about what is happening at the um museum structure, particularly under the Trump administration. History is not something that we seek to change or bend. Uh history was taking place before we arrived. History is something that we should learn from, and to the degree that uh Mr. Trump, specifically on the fourth of July of twenty twenty six, uh took further attacks at the National Museum of African American History, I thought was very concerning. And he says that it is divisive, that we should show the happier side of American enslavery, that we should show things that we have to unify us. I think what unifies us is the truth. Uh, Mister Blight, I would ask you, Doctor Blight, from your historical perspective, what does it say about a society that cannot reconcile its history, its truth, and where are we now?

Well, for one thing it says it's a mature society. Uh, history is never easily reconciled. One example, um, members here today have said that, uh, America is unique, exceptional and great because, uh, we ended slavery. Actually, it is far closer to a historical truth that America is unique and exceptional uh, in that it took a massive all-out civil war to end slavery. We are the only country or empire in the world that killed seven hundred and thousand, seven hundred thousand of its own people in order to no longer have slavery. We have all become abolitionists now. We all like to celebrate America ended slavery. But if we don't know the process by which we got to that point, We know next to nothing.

Well, let me ask you. Um, there is now this attempt, if you will. They're saying that our history is divisive. There were great people, uh, Senator Charles Sumner is a personal hero, uh, Thaddeus Stephens, he was some of the people that were called the great, uh, reconstructionist, if you will, that brought about America. When you cancel out African Americans in American history, you in fact don't tell the whole story. the purpose under Dr. Carjee Woodson, who started off with African American History Week, and then Jo- and then um uh Gerald Ford creating African History Month, and even to the dedication of the museum that was allocated the land by George W. Bush. How do we tell the whole story so we can show the progress that we've made in the resilience in in America?

Well, uh Congressman, isn't that simple? Uh, last fall, with two colleagues at Yale, Beverly Gage and Joanne Freeman, I taught a course called " America at two fifty, a history". Now no one teaches this way anymore. No one tries to do the whole story in one course. Uh, we had so many people attending the course we had to hold it in the chapel of the university. And it was done under a rubric where Yale allows the community to come. We had four hundred local citizens attending every day. We had four hundred undergraduates attending every day. we taught the whole national story, the big picture, in one course. It was a little crazy, but we pulled it off. And we found there was a deep yearning to know the whole story, but through all of the new histories as best we could that we've come to know and understand. Um, i- it's, it's, it goes without saying that if you erase your past, you'll pay for it.

Well, I'd like to say very much thank you, and I'd like to share this for the record. I was at the dedication of the museum ten years ago, and George W. Bush, I have to say thank you to him. He dedicated this land, he wanted it prominent, and he also said in his remarks, and I would recommend other people read his remarks, there were about five minutes, and this is just one brief section. He says, " This museum is an important addition to our country for many reasons. Here are three. First, it shows our commitment to truth." A nation, a great nation does not hide its history, it faces its flaws and corrects them. This museum tells the truth that a country founded on the promise of liberty, held millions in shame, that the price of our union was America's original sin. Um, I would not thank Mister Bush for A, having made this a very prominent part of them all, and for having brought truth to the American narrative. Doctor Blight, I'll leave you with any last words.

Well, I'd only add to that that no less than Lonnie Bunch himself thanks uh President George W. Bush every chance he gets for the support for that museum.

Thank you, Doctor Blay. Um, my dear friend, Doctor Tim Burchard. Thank you so much for your uh generosity in letting me share a few minutes. Don't gavel me out. I would appreciate it so much. Thank you, Doctor, Mister Timothy Burch.

You're welcome, Chairman Jackson. In closing, I wanna thank our witnesses once again for their testimony. Uh,

With that and without objection, all members have five legislative days within which to submit materials and additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded to the witnesses. If there is no further business, without objection the sub subcommittee stands adjourned.