Who’s shaping America’s story? GOP zeroes in on Smithsonian’s DEI leadership

BS BRIEF

A review of public biographies found that numerous Smithsonian leaders and curators previously worked for Democratic offices or progressive organizations, fueling claims that the institution has developed a left-leaning culture.
The report lands as Congress and the Trump administration intensify oversight of the Smithsonian, with hearings, a White House report criticizing the museum’s historical narratives, and President Trump ordering signs outside the National Museum of American History directing visitors to alternative historical resources.
The battle is no longer just over museum exhibits—it’s become a broader fight over who gets to tell America’s story and whether taxpayer-funded institutions have become politically ideological.

GOP SCRUTINY OF SMITHSONIAN GROWS AS LEADERSHIP TIES TO DEMOCRATS, DEI COME INTO FOCUS

Republicans are escalating their campaign against the Smithsonian Institution after a review of public records found that many of its senior leaders and curators previously worked for Democratic politicians, progressive nonprofits or diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

The findings, first compiled through a review of publicly available biographies, LinkedIn profiles and campaign finance records, have added fuel to an already heated debate over whether the nation’s most recognizable museum system has drifted from historical scholarship into political activism.

Among those drawing attention is Roshni Lal, director of the Smithsonian’s Office of Academic Appointments and Internships, which oversees academic hiring. Before joining the Smithsonian in 2023, Lal served in several DEI leadership roles and has publicly discussed promoting “identity-based career services” and culturally inclusive hiring practices.

Public biographies also show that several curators at the National Museum of American History specialize in race, identity, restorative justice and social justice themes. One senior leader oversees the museum’s Center for Restorative History, which says it exists to elevate stories historically left out of the national narrative through the principles of restorative justice. Programs highlighted by the center include preserving the history of the Black Lives Matter movement and a decolonization working group.

Republicans argue that emphasis has come at the expense of presenting a more traditional account of American history.

The controversy has intensified following two recent House hearings examining whether the Smithsonian has used taxpayer dollars to promote what critics describe as one-sided political narratives instead of objective history. During testimony, Heritage Foundation senior fellow Mike Gonzalez accused museum leadership of transforming the institution into “a hothouse for anti-American activism.”

“These leaders have commandeered an institution that the nation entrusted to them to ensure the transmission… of American culture and heritage,” Gonzalez testified. “They have perversely turned it into its opposite.”

The Smithsonian strongly rejects that characterization.

“The Smithsonian is a nonpartisan institution, and politics does not factor into our hiring practices,” a spokesperson said in response to questions about employee backgrounds. “Our hiring is solely based on qualifications to fulfill the responsibilities of any given position.”

National Museum of American History Director Anthea Hartig defended the institution during congressional testimony last week.

“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,” Hartig told lawmakers. “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.”

The latest revelations come only days after President Trump ordered the installation of informational signs outside the National Museum of American History. Because the Smithsonian operates independently of the executive branch, Trump cannot directly rewrite exhibits or dismiss museum leadership. Instead, his order directs the National Park Service to place signs on federal sidewalks leading to the museum that reference a White House report criticizing the institution’s portrayal of American history.

Republicans have also begun discussing whether future appropriations should be tied to reforms at the Smithsonian.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas), one of the most outspoken critics, argued the museum should present “an actual objective telling of American history” rather than grouping Americans primarily by race, gender or identity. He has also called for leadership changes at the museum.

Political donation records reviewed as part of the public records analysis found that only a small percentage of contributions made by individuals identifying themselves as Smithsonian employees during the current election cycle went to Republican committees. Those figures have become another talking point for critics who argue the institution has developed an overwhelmingly one-sided internal culture.

Supporters of the Smithsonian counter that employees’ personal political activity does not determine how exhibits are researched or presented and argue that broadening historical narratives to include previously overlooked voices is consistent with the museum’s educational mission.

MY TAKE:

Here’s the question conservatives keep asking:

At what point does a pattern stop being a coincidence?

One former Democratic staffer? Fine. Two? Maybe. A handful of DEI activists? It happens.

But when biography after biography points in the same ideological direction, it’s no longer unreasonable to ask whether the hiring pipeline itself has become tilted.

Now, let’s be fair.

Having worked for a Democrat doesn’t automatically disqualify someone from being an excellent historian. Neither does having experience in DEI. Plenty of talented professionals have backgrounds in politics or advocacy.

But the Smithsonian isn’t just another nonprofit.

It’s America’s museum.

It belongs to taxpayers from every political persuasion.

That means conservatives have every right to ask whether the institution reflects the country—or simply reflects the worldview of the people doing the hiring.

History shouldn’t be propaganda from the left. It shouldn’t be propaganda from the right, either. It should tell Americans what happened, present the evidence honestly, acknowledge both triumphs and failures, and let visitors draw their own conclusions.

DBS WIRE SOURCES