House DOGE Committee Questions Smithsonian Over Claims of 'Rewriting American History' — APT

[0:00] nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and corrects them. This museum tells the [0:04] truth that a country founded on the promise of liberty held millions in chains, that the price [0:09] of our union was America's original sin. I went and I thanked Mr. Bush for, A, having made this [0:16] a very prominent part of them all and for having brought truth to the American narrative. Dr. Blight, [0:21] I'll leave you with any last words. Well, I'd only add to that that no less than Lonnie Bunch [0:27] himself, thanks President George W. Bush every chance he gets for the support for that museum. [0:36] Thank you, Dr. Blight. My dear friend, Dr. Tim Burchett, thank you so much for your generosity [0:41] in letting me share a few minutes. Don't gavel me out. I would appreciate it so much. Thank you, [0:45] Dr. Mr. Timothy Burch. You're welcome, Chairman Jackson. In closing, I want to thank our witnesses [0:51] once again for their testimony. With that, without objection, all members have five legislative days [0:58] within which to submit materials and additional written questions for the witnesses, which will [1:02] be forwarded to the witnesses. If there is no further business without objections, the subcommittee [1:07] stands adjourned. [1:08] House administration or the respective designees in two. One motion to recommit. [2:13] Section 9. Upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the House [2:18] the bill. H.R. 6955, to make improvements to the federal banking laws and for other purposes. [2:27] All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment [2:31] and the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed [2:35] in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules [2:40] Committee Print 119-35 shall be considered as adopted. The bill as amended shall be considered [2:46] as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. The previous [2:52] question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and on any further amendment [2:57] thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one. One hour of debate. Equally [3:03] divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial [3:07] Services or the respective designees in two. One motion to recommit. Section 10. Upon adoption [3:14] of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill. H.R. 9770, [3:20] making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2027 and for other purposes. All points [3:26] of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. [3:32] All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall [3:36] be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without [3:40] intervening motion except one. One hour of debate. Equally divided and controlled by the chair and the [3:44] ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or the respective designees in [3:50] two. One motion to recommit. Section 11. In the engrossment of H.R. 8800, the clerk shall A. Add [3:59] the text of Senate 1383 as passed by the House as new matter at the end of H.R. 8800. B. Assign [4:07] appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment. C. Conform cross-references and [4:13] provisions for short titles within the engrossment. C. D. Be authorized to make technical corrections [4:20] to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, page and line numbering, section numbering, [4:26] and insertion of appropriate headings within the engrossment. The gentleman woman from North [4:33] Carolina is recognized for one hour. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of debate [4:39] only, I yield a customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts pending which I yield myself [4:45] at such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for [4:52] the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative [4:59] days to revise and extend their remarks. Without objection. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of [5:06] the rule and the underlying legislation. Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H.R.S. [5:13] 1838, providing for the House's consideration of H. Conres 113, H.R. 9770, H.R. 8800, H.R. 8884, H.R. 7008 and H.R. 6955. [5:34] This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8800, the FY27 National Defense Authorization [5:43] Act, under a structured rule, and makes in order 320 amendments. The rule provides for [5:51] one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member [5:56] the committee on armed services or their respective designees and one motion to recommit. Additionally, [6:04] the rule provides that upon House passage of H.R. 8800, the clerk shall add the text of [6:11] S. 1383, the Save America Act, to the bill and transmit it to the Senate as one bill. The bill further [6:24] provides for consideration of H.R. 8884, the Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act, [6:34] under a closed rule. The rule provides for one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair [6:42] and ranking member of the committee on armed services or their respective designees and one motion to [6:50] recommit. The rule provides for consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 113 establishing the [6:59] Congressional Budget for fiscal year 2027 under a closed rule. The rule provides for one hour of [7:08] general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on the [7:14] House Administration or their respective designees and one motion to recommit. The rule further provides [7:20] for consideration of H.R. 7884, the Stop Insider Trading Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides one hour of [7:32] general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on House [7:38] Administration or their respective designees and one motion to recommit. The rule provides for consideration [7:47] of H.R. 6955, the Main Street Capital Access Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides one hour of general [7:57] debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on financial services or [8:05] their respective designees or their respective designees and one motion to recommit. Finally, the rule provides for [8:12] consideration of H.R. 9770, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2027, under a closed rule. The rule provides one hour [8:22] of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on House [8:28] House Administration or their respective designees and one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, the rule and its six [8:37] underlying measures are a direct reflection of our Republican majority's expressed commitments on multiple [8:46] fronts. Contrary to the predictable and entirely incoherent hubbub that will reverberate from the other [8:56] side of this chamber during today's debate. Republicans remain at the helm like we always have and remain [9:04] focused as we always have. It's okay to tune out those on the other side of the aisle while they're [9:12] blathering on, Mr. Speaker. Their fevered political rhetoric does not carry an iota of substance. [9:21] There's a great deal of business to attend to this week, Mr. Speaker. [9:25] All of us understand that time indeed is of the essence here. And let's talk for a moment about [9:33] that business. H. Conres 113 begins the process to provide urgent, necessary resources for our nation's [9:43] firefighters, reinforced election integrity measures, and support for the hardworking men and women [9:50] of our agriculture community so that our nation's food supply and food security remain as strong as [9:57] they can possibly be. H.R. 9770 upholds Congress's explicit article one duties to fund the federal [10:08] government so that its operational continuity does not lapse or is subjected to the same disgraceful [10:16] political subterfuge that our colleagues across the aisle engaged in last year. H.R. 8800, the keystone [10:25] of Congress's mandate to provide for the common defense of the nation, delivers for our nation's [10:32] service members, allocates the resources necessary to maintain a strong posture of defense and deterrence, [10:40] and confronts waste, fraud, and abuse head-on. H.R. 8884 allowed disabled Americans who want to join the [10:51] workforce to better their own lives to do so without having to worry about whether their disability [10:57] benefits will disappear abruptly. H.R. 7008 prohibits members of Congress, their spouses, [11:08] or dependent children from purchasing publicly traded stocks while also implementing the requirement that [11:16] the American people overwhelmingly support of requiring a photo ID to vote in federal elections. [11:25] It's entirely disingenuous for the other side to use fear-mongering tactics to scare people into [11:32] believing that Republicans are trying to take away anyone's right to vote. That's downright false. [11:41] Finally, H.R. 6955 makes life more affordable for Americans while also empowering Main Street by [11:50] ensuring that community lenders are no longer burdened by ill-advised mandates that make it harder for [11:58] them to serve families, small businesses, and local economy. That's the business at hand, Mr. Speaker. [12:09] We're not here to entertain the ever-so-tired ranting and raving from our colleagues, [12:16] what is ending, or any kind of absurd political musings they may want to spout off. [12:27] We're here to do the people's business. The business that makes America stronger, more secure, [12:37] and more prosperous. As we celebrate the 250th year of the greatest country in the world. [12:45] The truth. The mission has never depended on whether history is convenient, whether it's comfortable, [13:00] or whether you like it or not. It has always depended on whether or not history is accurate. [13:07] But what we have seen since January of last year, when the Trump administration took office, [13:13] is that this administration has launched an unprecedented effort to interfere in how American [13:19] history is told, researched, interpreted, presented, and taught, not just in the Smithsonian, [13:26] but in our schools, in our institutes of higher education, and through and across the federal [13:33] government. In March of last year, the President signed an executive order called [13:38] Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, directing the administration to review the exhibit [13:44] of our beloved museums and federal historic sites and monuments for what it characterized as improper [13:52] ideology. If that does not send a chill through your spine, I do not know what does. And they assigned [14:01] the Vice President, J.D. Vance, because of his assigned role as the Vice President, as the Board of Regents, [14:09] for the responsibility of advancing these objectives. But I want to be clear, this order wasn't simply [14:15] about exhibits. It was about exercising political control over historical scholarship. And what we [14:23] saw earlier this month, which was just referenced by the Chairman, is that this White House issued 162-page [14:30] report attacking the Smithsonian American history, accusing museum leadership of extreme political [14:38] activism, and calls for sweeping changes, calling out individual leaders by name. That is not policy. That is a [14:49] political witch hunt. The federal government is responsible for overseeing this independent [14:57] institution. And this should concern every single member of this committee, regardless of party. [15:02] Because when politicians begin deciding what facts are acceptable, scholarship ceases to be scholarship. [15:09] It becomes propaganda. Now we have seen this throughout American history. A lot of people are talking about [15:18] the roots of what is happening in this country right now, is existing in other countries and other [15:25] places and other authoritarian governments. But we have seen this here in America, with the lost cause in [15:30] the 1920s and the attempt to rewrite American history and to whitewash the Confederacy and slavery. [15:38] We saw this in McCarthyism here in this country, when a President and a Congress went after American [15:47] historians, actors and cultural institutions to rewrite the history of this country. We have seen it during [15:54] this administration as they had frozen grant funding to institutions across the country. They have erased [16:02] the history of our American service members on DoD websites, erasing the contributions of Black, of Hispanic, [16:12] Native American, of women, of LGBTQ plus people who have served this great nation in the uniform. Now history, [16:22] if you are a student of history, which is what the Smithsonian is all about, teaches us why this is so [16:29] dangerous. And I do not think that it is a mistake that the majority's witnesses in front of us in addition to the [16:37] the director are associated with the architecture of Project 2025. Because it was articulated in that [16:47] document and the institutions and the individuals who are sitting in the White House right now making [16:52] these decisions that they want to rewrite the history of this country and take away the resources [16:58] and leadership of people who have fought, marched, and served this country for generations so that they could [17:04] lead in this moment and keep moving our country forward. And they understand that when you remove books, when you [17:13] rewrite textbooks, when you pressure museums, when you silence scholars, you can do so to articulate power. [17:22] Now this is why today I am introducing the Smithsonian Integrity and Historical Independence Act. [17:28] It bars any federal official, including those in the White House who are trying to do this, from trying to interfere in [17:38] the independent institutions of this country and the historic interpretation of our nation's history. And it [17:46] reasserts our congressional authority over this independent agency. Now we have seen this over and over again during this [17:55] administration that they are trying to take over the independent entities and to assert executive [18:02] control that even the Supreme Court just ruled a few weeks ago they do not have with the Federal Reserve. And once again, [18:11] they are trying to do it again here in the Smithsonian. But I want to be clear, we will fight, [18:18] 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 [18:25] communities all across the country. And we refuse to let historians, artists, scholars, and people who [18:33] love these institutions with their entire hearts to be punished by an administration that is trying to [18:40] exercise political history, political control, and rewrite American history. So with that, Mr. Chairman, [18:49] I will yield back, but I am disappointed after all of the bipartisan work that we have done in this [18:54] committee to see this subcommittee used once again as a political tool for this administration. And [19:00] with that, I yield back. Thank you for your heartfelt comments. Without objection, Representative Carlos [19:07] Jimenez of Florida, Mr. Frost of Florida, my buddy Quasi Mifumi of Maryland, and Arianna Presley of [19:15] Massachusetts are waived on the subcommittee for the purpose of questioning witnesses today's hearing, [19:20] and others might come in as well. I'd like to welcome, today I'd like to welcome our witnesses. [19:25] First, we have Dr. Anthea Hartig. Dr. Hartig serves as the Director of the National Museum of American [19:30] History at the Smithsonian Institution. Next, we have Mike Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez serves as the E Pluribus [19:37] Unum Senior Fellow for the Catherine and Shelby Cullum Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign [19:43] Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Next, we have Dr. Matthew Spaulding. Dr. Spaulding serves as the Kirby [19:49] Professor of Constitutional Government and Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale [19:55] College's Washington, D.C. campus. Last, we have Dr. David Blight. Dr. Blight serves as Sterling Professor of [20:02] History at Yale University, and I thank you all for joining us, and I look forward to your testimony. [20:07] Pursuant to Committee Rule 9G, the witnesses will please stand and raise their right hand. [20:13] Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, [20:23] and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Let the record show the witnesses answered in the [20:29] infernative, and thank you all. You want me to take a seat? We appreciate you all being here today and [20:34] look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written statement, [20:38] and it will appear in the full hearing record. Please limit your oral statements to five minutes. [20:44] If you go over, I'll tap the mic, tap the gavel so you'll know. As a reminder, please press the button on [20:52] the microphone in front of you so that it is on and the members can hear you. When you begin to speak, [20:58] the light in front of you will turn green. After four minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the [21:02] red light comes on, your five minutes have expired, and we would like you to please wrap it up. [21:07] I now recognize Dr. Hartig for her opening statement. Thank you, ma'am. [21:18] Thank you, sir. Chairman Birchett, Ranking Member Stansbury, and members of the committee, [21:29] thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I know this committee has questions about the [21:35] National Museum of American History, and I welcome the chance to answer them. As an historian, I have [21:42] spent my career studying, teaching, and preserving the history of the United States. My family has [21:49] served this nation since the Revolutionary War, and I was raised with a deep sense of obligation to it, [21:56] and the democratic ideals that the country asks each generation to build and to uphold. Since 2019, [22:05] I have been honored to serve as the Elizabeth MacMillan Director of your National Museum of American [22:11] History, home of the Star-Spangled Banner. It is a true honor to serve alongside my devoted fellow public [22:19] servants who staff the museum, and I am immensely proud of our work. Congress created the Smithsonian [22:27] institution in 1846 with an aspirational mission of diffusion in knowledge. Can you imagine the [22:34] increase in diffusion of knowledge? It is an independent trust instrumentality outside the [22:39] executive branch of government and is governed by a Board of Regents that includes all three branches [22:44] of government and nine citizen regents appointed by a joint resolution of Congress. The Smithsonian takes [22:53] the concerns raised in the White House Domestic Policy Council's report seriously, and as we continue to [23:00] fact check the report, we unwaveringly attest that it does not fairly or accurately characterize the full [23:07] body of work at the museum. There is always room for improvement, but I also know the beauty and the [23:14] inspiration and the expertise that lies in our collections, our exhibits, and our programming. When a family walks [23:24] through the doors of the museum, free of charge, as two million people did last year, they find the [23:31] desk on which Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, Horatio Greenhour's magnificent [23:37] statue of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln's top hat from the night he was assassinated, the Greensboro [23:44] lunch counter, the gowns of the First Ladies, and the stories of Americans in uniform. They find the inventions [23:51] that changed the world and the ordinary Americans who built it. I have watched 10-year-olds with their [23:58] families stand in front of the Star Spangled Banner with their hands over their hearts. No one told them [24:04] to. That is the National Museum of American History at its most powerful. Patriotism. Not instructed, but [24:14] inspired. Our work is governed by the Smithsonian standards of scholarship, accuracy, independence, [24:21] and non-partisanship. The museum does not take sides in America's political debates. We preserve and [24:30] document the evidence of American life in all of its breadth so that the public can encounter the past [24:36] and draw their own conclusions. We are also always learning. When visitors, scholars, members of Congress, [24:45] veterans, and teachers, volunteers tell us we've gotten something wrong or only half right, we take it [24:52] seriously. And we make the changes when the evidence supports them. And when historians talk about [24:59] reframing a traditional narrative, we don't mean erasing it. We mean adding the evidence, the voices, [25:06] the objects that earlier tellings left out so that more Americans can see themselves reflected in the [25:14] national story. We honor the Declaration, the Revolution, the Constitution, our national symbols, [25:21] and we tell the truth about the times that the country fell short of its own founding ideals. [25:28] Telling our story fully is a form of respect for the American people and a commitment to [25:34] constantly being in pursuit of a more perfect union. I hope that you will judge this museum [25:41] the way that the American people do, by what's on its walls and what's in its care. Please accept our sincere [25:49] invitation. Walk the building with me. Stand in awe in front of the Star Spangled Banner. I believe what [25:56] you will find, madames and sirs, is not an institution that has forgotten its country, but one that loves it [26:04] enough to tell the full sweep of history, our triumphs and our struggles. I love the United States of America. [26:13] I consider it the privilege of my career to help preserve its treasures and serve the American [26:19] people. I'm grateful for the chance to answer your questions today. Thank you. Thank you. I now [26:25] recognize Mr. Gonzalez for his opening statement. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of this committee, [26:32] thank you for the opportunity to testify. Following Election Day 2024, Thomas Frank published an op-ed in [26:40] the New York Times, suitably titled, The Elites Had It Coming. Here's where Frank, who's a liberal, [26:47] wrote, everyone has a moment when he first realized that Donald Trump might well return, and here is [26:52] mine. It was back in March, during a visit to the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, when I [26:57] happened to read a text beside an old painting. It described the westward advance of the United States [27:03] as settler colonialism. I knew instantly where this nation was going. Some curator at one of the most [27:09] exalted institutions had decided to use morally loaded academic keyword to address a visitor to [27:15] the museum, say a family from the Midwest, and teach them a lesson about American wickedness, unquote. [27:22] Teaching lessons about American wickedness is now the mission of the Smithsonian. It is the intent of [27:27] the leadership and is precisely what they trained the staff to do. Secretary Lonnie Bunch III, Anthea Hardig, [27:33] the director of the National Museum of American History and one of today's witnesses, [27:37] and other museum leaders have commandeered the world's largest museum complex and admit that [27:43] they intend to use it as a tool of societal transformation. This is not why Americans entrusted [27:48] these institutions to them. Culture is not passed in the bloodstream. National museums are repositories [27:54] of a nation's collective inheritance so that it can be transmitted to future generations. However, [28:00] the Smithsonian's leadership has subverted this mission. Under Dr. Hardig, the History Museum has erased [28:06] two words from the mission statement. The first is history itself. The word history had to go [28:12] because Dr. Hardig preferred the museum to be, quote, very future-facing. The other word that [28:17] disappeared in the new mission statement was America itself. Director Hardig said the term America [28:24] should include, quote, the entirety of the Americas, not just our part of North America. [28:29] She also said that loving America is complicated. Dr. Hardig, the director of the National Museum of American [28:38] History, has deconstructed the museum's mission statement to borrow terms of the postmodernists [28:44] who clearly guide her work. We're here today, as you said, because on July 4th, the White House [28:49] released a devastating report focusing on Anthea Hardig's museum and the agenda that she pushes. [28:54] Read the report and you will find that it is not just postmodernism that guides the leadership. [29:00] To see the world in terms of power dynamics, who has dominance, and how to wrest it from them [29:04] by dismantling the American narrative. This is deeply Marxist and Gramscian. In fact, the action [29:11] toolkit that leadership used to indoctrinate staff at the Smithsonian for years, even quotes approvingly [29:17] from the works of the Frankfurt School's critical theorist, Herbert Marcuse. You can understand why [29:23] Bunch began his tenure by tying the institution to two ideological and destructive movements, [29:30] the 1619 Project and Black Lives Matter. BLM's main leader had made clear in 2019 that the group's goal [29:38] was to, quote, keep dismantling the organizing principle of this society, unquote. Yet in July 2020, [29:47] as the country was burning, Lonnie Bunch wrote that he saw a moment of promise and possibility. Bunch said [29:54] that the Smithsonian would legitimize the 1619 Project, except that historians from both sides [30:01] of the spectrum decried the shoddy scholarship and inaccuracies of the 1619 Project. For ideological [30:08] reasons, Lonnie Bunch put the Smithsonian's reputation at serious risk, and Director Hardig endorsed all of [30:14] it, pledging to, quote, work to reframe the traditional celebratory narrative of U.S. history, unquote, [30:21] to force a, quote, national reckoning. National reckoning? From a history museum? This erasure of [30:29] American culture must end now. As Stanley Kurtz wrote last week, you can say that the economy and [30:36] foreign policy are more important than these cultural battles. Over the long haul, however, [30:41] that is simply not true, unquote. You need to clean house and relieve all Smithsonian leadership of their [30:47] duties. Also, they authorize the yet-to-be-built Latino and women's museums, which will no doubt [30:53] become two more incubators of anti-American grievances. We can see this in the precursor [30:59] exhibits that they've had. Loving America is not complicated. Dr. Hardig is wrong. I implore [31:04] you to do your jobs. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, sir. Dr. Spalding. Thank you, [31:14] Chairman Burchett, Ranking Member Stansberry, members of the committee. The National Museum of American [31:20] History is one of the country's greatest treasures. It contains some of the most iconic artifacts of [31:24] American history. Jefferson's writing desk, Washington's uniform, the great American flag [31:29] that inspired the national anthem. But it no longer provides the story that makes those objects [31:35] intelligible. Indeed, the National Museum of American History is no longer the nation's museum [31:41] of American history. The White House's domestic policy report, Saving America's Story, catalogs in [31:46] great detail, over 160 pages and 522 footnotes, the many controversial and objectionable displays of [31:53] the museum. But those details are evidence of a larger transgression. The real crime here, [32:00] premeditated and followed through, is that America's story, the well-established narrative of [32:05] main characters and key events, long at the center of American self-understanding, has been so reframed, [32:11] jettisoned, dissentered, deconstructed, and problematized, that it no longer exists in any [32:17] recognizable form. America's story has been replaced by an altogether new and controversial approach, [32:23] defined by postmodern theories that see history as processes of oppressive power struggles, [32:30] and use history as a tool to encourage social transformation. Now that might be an interesting [32:36] abstract discourse for the faculty lounge, but it shouldn't be the rubric for the nation's [32:41] Smithsonian Museum. The report concludes, rightly in my opinion, that the museum has become subject [32:46] to institutional capture. That is the big picture, the forest we should not miss for all the trees. [32:55] But don't take my word for it. The current director has said that at the National Museum of American [32:59] History we work to reframe the traditional silvatory narrative of U.S. history. The Center for [33:05] Restorative History at the museum described its work as systemic intervention, instead of [33:10] intended to transform the national historical narrative and restructure institutional [33:15] priorities. The museum's mission has been changed. Its previous mission was to explore the infinite [33:22] richness and complexity of American history, to help people understand the past. Its new mission is to [33:28] empower people to create a more just and compassionate future by exploring the complexity of our past. [33:36] As was noted, American and history are both gone, replaced by our past, and understanding is replaced by [33:43] empowerment. This is not a history based on established facts and known reality. Indeed, it is not history [33:50] at all. This is the very definition of an ideology, a systematic framework for interpreting society, [33:56] challenging the social order, and instigating political and social action. This is not the purpose [34:02] of the National Museum of American History. It is not the mission of the Smithsonian. It is not Congress's [34:09] legislative intent, and it is not what taxpayers should be subsidizing to the tune of a billion dollars [34:16] a year. A National Museum of American History should tell the American national story. It should present the [34:23] facts of history, what actually happened, as accurately as possible and with minimal present-day bias. [34:30] America's history belongs neither to liberals nor conservatives. It belongs, as was noted, to the American [34:35] people. It should be told, warts and all, so that visitors understand the basic chronological narrative [34:43] and see how the nation got to where it is today. Nothing integral to that history should be erased or [34:49] whitewashed. But social transformation should not be the objective. The National Museum of American [34:57] History should tell the story of a nation and a people driven to overcome injustice and live up to its [35:03] heritage. A story of imperfection, but also overwhelming accomplishment, of tragedies, but also great triumphs, [35:12] of hardship, but also heroism. Over the course of our history, Americans have made choices, taken actions, [35:20] sacrificed, corrected flaws, made a more perfect union, and struggled to live up to those principles. The outcome was [35:29] never foreknown, but there remains a certain nobility about it. A healthy attachment to this country is neither blind to its [35:37] flaws nor fanatical in believing that America is the source of all good. Nevertheless, each generation [35:43] should be equipped with the knowledge of America's principles and history, a reverence for their [35:46] liberties, and a reflective love of their country. That patriotism must be strong enough and unsentimental [35:53] enough to coexist with criticism, dissent, disappointment, and opposition. But it is love all the same. [35:59] Without the civic foundation supplied by reflective patriotism of self-governing people, [36:05] a republic will perish. A museum focused on claims of systematic oppression teaches national self-loathing. [36:12] Why should taxpayers subsidize a museum that teaches contempt for their country and reframes its past to [36:16] serve ideological purposes? Such a museum is not worthy of a great country, should not receive the [36:21] imprimatur of Congress, and is unfit to shape the minds and hearts of the American people. Thank you. [36:28] Thank you, Dr. Spaulding. Dr. Belay. [36:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Ranking Member and members of the Committee. [36:36] It's a very special privilege as a historian to have this opportunity to defend one's craft. [36:45] As historians, we often dwell in the past, and professionally we should. But in the spring of [36:52] 2025, with President Trump's executive order restoring truth and sanity to American history, [36:58] and now with the White House's report saving America's story, the present has come storming [37:04] into our work lives with vengeance, and we welcome the challenge. The present is inherently interwoven [37:12] with the past. The White House now believes it should pronounce on the nature of history [37:18] and the presentation of the nation's treasures at the Smithsonian. The recent report by the White [37:23] House Domestic Policy Council is nothing less than a declaration of political war on the historian's [37:31] profession, as well as on the freedom and curiosity of anyone who reads or visits museums. In other words, [37:38] President Trump has declared war on free minds and free education. Historians are not voices of the [37:46] state. We are keepers of memory. And at our best, we're storytellers with trained imaginations. And yet, [37:56] they declare with such certainty what forms of, and these are the words of the report, heritage, destiny, [38:05] settled truths, and indeed stories, that the Smithsonian should instill one of the report's favorite verbs [38:14] in the minds of the public. Historians are now fighting back in the interest of scholarly history, [38:20] well told, for the broadest possible public. Ours is a beautiful and ancient craft, essential for any [38:28] society's need for self-understanding. We are equipped with a host of modern methods, but guided ethically [38:36] by very old rules that no authoritarian political project ought to be allowed to profane. As historian, [38:44] a historian reads, listens, searches, measures, imagines his or her way into and through all manner of [38:52] evidence. Facts, sometimes clear, sometimes slanted every which way. We examine, read, accumulate, sift, [39:00] study these modes of evidence with, hopefully, empathy and humility. Then we rise up from all our data [39:08] and our sources and all manner of context and fashion all this into a story, into narrative, [39:16] in order to inspire and take our audiences somewhere. And once we get them there, we are bound by our [39:24] craft to make an argument about why this all happened and why it matters. People often comment on how [39:33] Trumpism would like to return us to some version of the 1950s when America was great. In this report, [39:41] they have transparently done just that. The report is rooted explicitly in the Cold War of the 1950s. [39:49] In the founding of the National Museum of American History, its legislation and dedication speeches, [39:55] the founding words and sentiments understandably breathed the rhetoric of Cold War triumphalism. [40:02] How could it have been otherwise? The report offers no context for what might have invoked such [40:09] expressions. The Soviet achievement of the hydrogen bomb, Sputnik, the Korean War, the Cuban Missile [40:15] Crisis, the March on Washington, and the assassination of President Kennedy. Had the Domestic Policy Council [40:21] consulted trained historians, they might have provided some context. They might also have consulted Edward R. [40:28] Murrow's famous commentary in 1954, the year after the museum was conceived, on Joseph McCarthy and his [40:36] assaults on free speech. We can deny our heritage and our history said Morrow, but we cannot escape responsibility [40:45] for the result. Erase McCarthyism and it will come back. Erase any other 50 difficult aspects of American history, [40:56] they will come back. Triumphalist history cannot tolerate nuance, ambiguity, complexity, but they are lifeblood for real historians. [41:09] Also, in a deep Cold War context, James Baldwin wrote in an essay entitled, also 1962, [41:18] as much truth as one can bear, that the problem with the way Americans approach history is that, quoting him, [41:26] words are mostly used to cover the sleeper, but not to wake him up. We do not write woke history, [41:35] whatever that is, but we do try to awaken citizens. In recent decades, we sowed the wind with new kinds of history. [41:45] Here comes the whirlwind. If we're not careful, we will end up with what the great writer Toni Morrison called [41:54] status history and it will create what she called sanctioned ignorance. That's what's at risk. Thank you. [42:05] Thank you, sir. Without objection, my buddy, Representative Don Beyer of Virginia is waived on the subcommittee for [42:18] purpose of questioning witness to today's hearing. And is Mr. Burleson not here? Okay. I now recognize [42:26] myself for five minutes of questions. Chairlady Hartig, is that what we call you? Or director? [42:37] Director or doctor? You're a doctor? Okay. You got director, but a doctor. [42:40] I am a director and a doctor. You earned it. [42:42] I'll give you the title. How about that? [42:44] One time I made the mistake of calling a coach mister and he reminded me he was coach. So you earned [42:49] that title and you get it. I do appreciate your constant land acknowledgements that were in the [42:55] film. I'm wondering, have you ever planned on deeding any of your personal property or property of the [43:04] Smithsonian to any of these tribes? I don't believe that's pertinent to the conversation, sir. [43:14] Well, I mean, you say that every time you open your meetings, apparently. And I was just curious [43:23] of that acknowledgement, if that was something you were planning on doing. Should the American [43:28] History Museum be the site that focuses in on what we have in common, the shared national heritage of [43:34] great ideals and revolutionary events, or focus on what you deemed the issue of the day, which are race, [43:40] identity, gender, and sexuality? Ma'am? Yes, sir. At the National Museum of American History, [43:51] we strive to create a museum where our visitors will be inspired by the collections, programs, [43:58] and exhibitions. And they will choose what they each will do to keep our American democracy strong [44:04] and vibrant. And they'll play that chosen part with passion. That is our hope. [44:09] Okay. I do think that most Americans would disagree with you on what the most important [44:17] issues are. How did the museum determine those core issues of the day? [44:21] So the Smithsonian and the museum are committed to rigorous, fact-based, museum-quality experiences, [44:33] and to tell the full and rich story of America in a way that enlightens and welcomes every visitor. [44:38] We use historical evidence, competing perspectives, and acknowledge enduring debates so that visitors [44:47] can understand how we've wrestled with democracy, and citizenship, and liberty, and national identity. [44:54] So in our work to document the stories of all Americans throughout time, we really do hope [45:01] that everyone who comes in can see themselves reflected. Okay. Gender and sexuality are highlighted [45:08] by your museum. The poster behind me shows an exhibit called Entertainment Nation on display now. [45:16] Do you think these exhibits behind me are appropriate for children? [45:19] So I recognize some of the images from Entertainment Nation and from, I think, some other sources. [45:35] But let me, I think, tell you what I think is most important. [45:39] Ma'am, I mean, you have pictures of bondage. You have some overtly sexual things up there. You have [45:49] transgendered folks. I assume that's what they are. And some, I don't care who it is. I don't care who [45:58] it is. It's not a fan. I can tell you that. But in another exhibit, a six-year-old girl asked why she [46:06] doesn't have male genitalia. Do you really think that content is appropriate for children? I mean, [46:13] do you think little girls have penises? I mean, let's get to the basics of this. Do you think [46:18] that's appropriate? So, sir, I believe the exhibition and project you're referring to is Girlhood, [46:26] It's Complicated, which was a temporary exhibit in our museum that closed, I believe, in 2020. [46:32] Ma'am, I didn't ask you that. I asked you, do you think, is it appropriate? [46:34] So, in that exhibit, sir, with permission of the author, we shared a 13-year-old's diary, [46:42] which I believe is what you're discussing. And in that diary, they wrote about sleepovers and [46:47] Latin class and math exams. Ma'am, do you think that's appropriate? I appreciate this. We're [46:52] limited on time, ma'am. Do you think that's appropriate? Do you think that is appropriate for [46:56] a child to see? Yes or no? I understand your question, sir. No, you don't. You're not answering. [47:02] You're just running on, ma'am. And I appreciate your hospitality, but the reality is you are not [47:06] answering the questions. You are funded by taxpayers, and the taxpayers would like to know, [47:11] is that appropriate? So, sir, Girlhood, It's Complicated was not designed for children. [47:17] It had a label in the beginning of the exhibition that shared with parents about some of the topics [47:24] that would be covered. And we do that with exhibitions that we think kind of need that help. So, parents then [47:31] can come and look at objects. All right. Well, thank you, ma'am. I understand you're not going to [47:35] answer it. I'm going to run out of time. But given some of your previous comments, including America [47:40] was founded based on the supremacy of white men, loving America is very complicated. America's 250th [47:48] anniversary is worth problematizing. Why should you do you think you should continue leading the [47:55] National Museum of American History? It's the honor of my career to serve as the Elizabeth [48:01] McMillan director of the National Museum of American History. Thank you, ma'am. We're out of time. [48:05] Thank you, sir. All right. The next, Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [48:10] First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for attending and to help the committee with its work. [48:16] I'd like to level set this hearing, though. So, I'm going to ask you as in this discussion about our [48:23] history, Dr. Harding, who won the 2020 presidential election? Please, I only have so much time. Is that a tough [48:34] question? Good morning, sir. No, it's not a tough question. Joseph R. Biden won the election. Great. [48:43] Mr. Gonzalez? Biden was president from 2021 to 2020. Who won the election, sir? I'm just trying [48:51] to test where you're coming from. Biden won the election. Excuse me? Biden won the election. [48:58] Okay. Dr. Spaulding? Thank you. Dr. Blight? Okay, great. Thank you. So, you're all keenly interested in [49:13] preserving American history. I heard from all of you that you care about the facts, [49:19] the evidence, the narrative. You know, as an Irish Catholic from Boston, [49:26] I was in the third grade when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And the nuns in our school made [49:35] sure we understood everything about JFK's life. You know, he was a lot of people don't realize he's the [49:41] only president to ever receive the Purple Heart because of his heroism in the Solomon Islands during [49:47] the Second World War. And importantly, he and Jacqueline Kennedy were the principal founders of the [50:00] Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. And much of the drive came from Jacqueline, to be honest with [50:08] you. But the president and the first lady raised all the funding for the Kennedy Center for the [50:16] Performing Arts. And in his life, you know, and at the end of his life, President Kennedy sacrificed [50:27] everything, everything, everything for this country. And you know where I'm going with this. The current [50:36] president came in, having nothing to do with the establishment of that that institution, and put his [50:43] name above above John F. Kennedy's on the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. As an Irish Catholic [50:54] from South Boston, that was stolen valor. That was stolen valor. He had nothing to do with that. And it was [51:01] distortion of history. To someone who visited that for the first time, they would not know. They would [51:08] not know the history of that building. And the fact that it's the only building in the United States [51:13] Capitol that honors Kennedy's memory and his legacy. Kennedy sacrificed everything, you know. He inspired me [51:26] to get into politics. Dr. Blight, let me ask you, is distorting that in that stolen valor, [51:37] renaming that building, changing the history of that building with no basis for doing so. Is that a [51:46] distortion of our history as well? Of course it is. Erase it and it will come back. On that day, [51:56] I was in Mr. Barron's ninth grade civics class when he went to the door to get the information that [52:02] Kennedy had been shot. And he addressed the class to tell us the president was dead. I will never forget [52:09] that. Yeah. And what a great museum does, what a good class does, what a historic site does, is it simply [52:16] inspires a sense of history. Why the past matters. You could not have been in a school room that day [52:24] and not had a sense of history. It certainly was part of mine. Thank you. You know, I understand, you [52:32] know, sometimes political correctness can, can, can act as censorship or it can distort, [52:42] uh, it can distort the, the history and, and, and, and, and, and, you know, the way we view the world. [52:52] And I understand that. I understand. And I, I understand some of the, some of the pushback [52:58] is, is about perhaps the censorship that, that is present in, in political correctness. But then [53:06] the facts are the facts. Dear God, you know, the president, you know, continually goes back to 2020 [53:14] election to say that he won it and we should stand together and reject that crap. Thank you. I yield [53:21] back. Thank you, sir. Yield to Mr. Cloud from Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, [53:30] Director Hartig. I've visited, as I have many times, the, uh, Museum of American History. Um, [53:43] and what I think I find most troubling is the fact that you can do a lot with real history. Um, and, [53:55] and what's concerning is the distortion, I think, of the truth and in the context. And just for example, [54:01] the American democracy, a great leap of faith, you know, this exhibit, you turn the corner and the first [54:06] thing you see, uh, is this, it's a wall. And the two words, of course, that pop out are privilege and [54:12] slavery. Now, is that a part of American history? Sure. Should it be covered up? No. Uh, but what [54:18] makes America unique and exceptional isn't, for example, the fact that slavery was a part of our [54:23] history. It was a part of almost every nation's history. What makes America unique is the fact that [54:27] we worked to overcome it, uh, and, and we're leaning on the world stage and, and getting rid of it. [54:34] Um, and as I walked through, you mentioned, as you walked through the doors, you'll see Thomas [54:38] Jefferson's desk. You'll see, you know, Abraham Lincoln's top hat. And those are in the museum, [54:45] yes, but that is not what you see when you walk in. What you see is exhibits to, uh, social reform. You'll see, [54:52] uh, displays in the end caps or the, the, the display, the glass displays on the side of pictures [54:59] of drag show or pro abortion language and all these different kinds of things. I, I'm curious, [55:05] you know, I was really surprised as we're celebrating the 250th, uh, anniversary of our nation. [55:12] Uh, how did we come up with the 250th anniversary? Like, what are we celebrating in the 250th anniversary? [55:21] Thank you, sir. And thank you for your visit. And, um, we've hosted, I think since January, [55:27] 25 senators and house. Ma'am, I know your intention today is to filibuster the entire time. [55:32] There's a particular document that was signed on July 4th, 1776, uh, for which we celebrate. [55:38] Could you? Absolutely, sir. So when you come into the museum right now, that would be the declaration [55:44] of independence, ma'am. Yes, sir. I was surprised to find that in the museum of American history, [55:51] on the 250th year of our anniversary, there's not an exhibit for the declaration of independence. [55:57] Now, sure there's Jefferson's desk and it takes up a very small space in a, but you would think, [56:03] I, I went through the museum looking for the words, we, the people. And you would think when you walked [56:09] in, that would be the biggest, boldest thing, especially on the 250th anniversary, the idea of [56:15] e pluribus unum, where out of many become one. That's what makes America unique. Uh, and yet, [56:21] your take seems to be to take the uniqueness, the unity of America and, and to try to divide us up [56:27] into different things. Why, who, who made the decision not to have a display for the declaration [56:32] of independence on our 250th anniversary? So, sir, I'm going to go maybe back a few beats and answer [56:38] your, your, I think your first question of the four. So the declaration of independence, of course, [56:43] um, signed and ratified on July 4th in 1776 in Philadelphia appears on a full wall in the [56:51] Price of Freedom, our history of the military on our third floor, Eastern wing. It's a, it's a blow up [56:57] slide. Yeah. Yeah. It's a standard exhibit. It's in the linda. It's in the back, but you have to walk [57:02] through a bunch of junk to get there. No, not exactly. And as a matter of fact, right, right now there, [57:06] you would think. I'm happy to answer your question, sir. This would have been a great time to pull out all [57:09] the artifacts. I, I, I thought, let me look and try to find something on John Adams, you know, [57:14] and I'm not saying it's not there, but it's hard to find. Uh, John Adams, John Jay, Caesar Rodney, [57:18] we can talk about Crispus Atticus, Phyllis Wheatley, the poet laureate of American Revolution, [57:23] all these different kinds of things. What would you say is the most influential book in American [57:26] history? So if I may go back to your second question, what would you say is most influential [57:31] book? May I go back to your second question? You can answer the one I just asked you. Well, I, [57:36] you know, as a historian, it's probably hard to choose which is the most influential book in the [57:42] United States history, but I can tell you what's the most influential document, and that is the [57:46] Declaration of Independence, which appears in different ways at least four or five times. [57:52] The founders quoted one book more than any other book. The founders were very well read, [57:58] and as you know, Thomas Jefferson's library became the core of the Library of Congress. Yes, [58:02] and that book would have been the Bible. Secondly, would have been Common Sense by Thomas Paine. Now, [58:07] I went to the bookstore. I couldn't find Common Sense in the bookstore. I did find, you know, [58:11] these books. Here's George Takei. It rhymes with Takei. A book in which he talks about, you know, [58:19] one young man lusting after another. I'm not sure why this is in our American History Museum in the kids [58:24] section, mind you. That's, that you think is important to have in the American History Museum? [58:32] So, George Takei, as you know, the actor from Star Trek, was incarcerated during World War II as the [58:40] result of Executive Order 9066. And his children's book, I think, is a beautiful story. [58:45] Who made the decision to put that in there, but not Common Sense? [58:48] Especially with Senator Alan Simpson. Thank you, sir. [58:52] Mr. Subramanian. [59:00] Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, we're here for a hearing entitled, Rewriting American History, [59:09] Examining the Smithsonian's Efforts to Reshape the Past. And this was in response to a domestic [59:16] policy council report. The Domestic Policy Council is a part of the White House. And what's interesting [59:22] is that, I was looking back, this seems to be one of the only domestic policy council standalone [59:29] reports this year. In fact, perhaps this administration. The only one I could find was [59:34] the last one they did on the national report on paper straws. And so, this is how our domestic policy [59:39] council is spending its time. At a time where we have higher costs across the board. Where we have [59:45] a war going on in the Middle East. And where we have people hurting every single day. Losing their access [59:52] to healthcare. Losing their access to food assistance. Because this Domestic Policy Council recommended it be [59:58] cut. That's where we are right now. And I think it's really important. Mr. Gonzalez, I want to go back [1:00:05] to a quote. You quoted Stanley Kurtz in your opening saying, you can say that the economy and foreign [1:00:10] policy are more important than these cultural battles over the long haul. That's simply not true. [1:00:15] Do you stand by that? That these cultural battles are more important than our economy and our foreign [1:00:22] policy? Oh, absolutely. Yes. I think it was Lincoln who said, no soldier, no foreign soldier. [1:00:26] He's going to take a drink from the Mississippi. So you think that this, this particular hearing [1:00:31] on what the Smithsonian, where the Smithsonian is putting Thomas Jefferson's desk is more important [1:00:36] than people facing higher utility costs? That's not what the report is focused on. That's what you [1:00:41] just said. No, no, no, no, no. You said that the cultural battles are more important to you and more [1:00:46] important than the higher costs of living that Americans are facing today. Over the long term, they are. [1:00:53] And it's not about where Thomas Jefferson's desk is. I think the, I think the president would agree [1:00:58] with you. I think this administration would agree with you and that's how they've acted. [1:01:02] And so let's just talk about the report since everyone wants to be here to talk about it, [1:01:06] it seems. The report actually had a lot of things that weren't true. For instance, [1:01:11] the opening of it talked about how the, the Smithsonian wasn't speaking enough about America 250, [1:01:18] but I looked at the Smithsonian's website and the first thing it talked about was America 250. [1:01:23] Director Hartig, did the Smithsonian talk about America 250? Yes, sir. We've been planning for [1:01:30] years to celebrate the semi-quincentennial and it's an honor to do so. And the report complained that [1:01:36] Thomas Jefferson's writing desk and George Washington's uniform were not on prominent display. [1:01:41] Were they on display at the American History Museum? Yes, sir. And then we're honored that the [1:01:46] Jefferson's writing desk went over to the Smithsonian Castle to be part of Secretary Bunch's American [1:01:52] Aspirations exhibition. And then it said it didn't have quotes from the Declaration of Independence. [1:01:58] I guess they were nitpicking about one specific sentence that are, are quotes from the Declaration [1:02:02] of Independence on full display at the, at the museum? Yes, sir. Okay. So it seems like it wasn't a very [1:02:08] good report either, but I looked back and they, by their admission, it was a months long report [1:02:14] involving multiple staff. Uh, Mr. Gonzalez, how much money do you think that report costs, [1:02:18] the American taxpayers? Because you're at the Heritage Foundation, so I know you care a lot about [1:02:22] American taxpayers. I have no idea. You have no, you didn't ask about how much the report [1:02:26] actually costs. No one looked into it. I think it would be hard to assess. [1:02:28] It would be hard to assess, okay. Given all the input that went into the report, how much it costs. [1:02:31] I asked, asked, um, AI and they said probably millions, potentially. Okay. [1:02:35] Yeah, probably. Because of staff time, because of outside. I would advise you against using AI, however. [1:02:39] Yeah. Okay. Well, sounds good. I'd ask somebody because he didn't have the answer to it. Yeah, [1:02:43] it hallucinates a lot. Yeah. Sounds good. Well, um, the other thing is, do you think, uh, there [1:02:47] should be mentions of, of Trump's impeachment at the museum? Um, sure. I mean, yeah, it happened. [1:02:54] It's history. Do you think there should be a wing of the museum dedicated to President Trump? [1:02:59] I have no idea. I'm not a curator. I don't know whether there should be a wing dedicated to President [1:03:05] Trump. Dr. Spalding, do you think there should be a wing of the museum dedicated to President Trump? [1:03:08] I don't think there should be a wing dedicated to any one president. Okay. Interesting. Even [1:03:13] George Washington? Uh, I think in the context of what he did in terms of the American Revolution, [1:03:17] the revolution, that kind of thing. I think what's actually happening, it's not that you don't want [1:03:22] ideology in the museum. It's not you want your ideology in the museum. And you want the museum to [1:03:26] reflect your values, your specific views on things, and not the views of what actually happened, [1:03:32] which was the facts. And so that's what we want, is we want the facts in the museum. We want people to [1:03:36] come away with patriotism, because they will, if you show them the facts of this great country. [1:03:40] And so I completely agree for everything that's happened in this first 250 years of America, [1:03:45] the good and the bad, the bad wouldn't have led to as good as what we've gotten. [1:03:48] A hundred percent. I look forward to the next 250 years. I look forward to teaching my kids and [1:03:52] grandkids the facts. I yield back. We agree. Great. Thanks, sir. Mr. Nice from South Carolina. [1:04:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Dr. Hartig, how many children visited the National Museum of American [1:04:05] History last year? Hi. Good morning, ma'am. Answer the question. How many kids? Good morning, ma'am. [1:04:12] Since we don't charge, we're- Are you the director of the museum? I am, ma'am. Okay. And you don't know [1:04:18] how, how many people visited the museum last year? Two million. How many of those were children? Ma'am, [1:04:24] I don't know. Don't even know. Okay. Do you agree that educating children about American history is a core [1:04:29] duty of the museum? Yes or no? Absolutely. And are images of sexual fetishes appropriate for [1:04:36] children? Yes or no? So ma'am- It's a simple yes or no, or sexual imagery, provocative sexual imagery [1:04:45] appropriate for kids. Yes or no? Ma'am, we strive to represent all Americans- You strive to represent [1:04:54] weird, pedophiles, indoctrination, grooming of kids at an American history museum. And it sounds like you're [1:05:02] proud of it. You won't answer the questions, probably because you're ashamed. And as a woman, [1:05:06] I really can't believe you will stand, sit here today. And you can't even admit that sexual imagery [1:05:12] like this behind me. They tell me, my staff tells me this little trinket around the penis, this is BDSM [1:05:18] in a, in a setting where children are walking through. That's disgusting. Like what kind of message [1:05:25] are you trying to send to kids with BDSM imagery? What is, what are you trying to tell kids? Are you [1:05:33] sexualizing children? Is that what your, your motive is for the museum? Why? So that's specific [1:05:40] two piece. Do you know how many kids get raped by adults every year in this country? This kind of thing, [1:05:46] when you are dressing men up as women, drag queens, you're putting this kind of crap in front of kids, [1:05:53] sexualizes them and makes them more vulnerable to people that want to rape them or abuse them. [1:05:59] Or when we have men and women's settings that want to do harm to, to women. You talked about the [1:06:07] girlhood exhibit and you didn't want to answer the chairman's questions earlier. But it was a diary [1:06:12] featuring a six year old, a six year old that reads, everybody was talking about getting boobs in their [1:06:18] period. I pray to God every night for my penis to grow. Dr. Harktig, can you tell me, look me in the eye and [1:06:23] tell me that that belongs in an exhibit for kids? Ma'am Girlhood, It's Complicated was not an exhibit [1:06:31] designed for children. I know you had the little disclaimer thing, which is sort of a- The diary [1:06:35] was of a 13 year old going through puberty. Okay. Do you think that's an appropriate thing to put in an [1:06:41] American history museum where there are children walking through? We're talking about American history. [1:06:47] Right. So Girlhood, It Complicated. Okay. I'm moving on because you just, they've, I don't know how much money [1:06:52] you spent on getting prepped for this hearing. They did a good job because you're filibustering [1:06:56] and not answering a single question from a single Republican today. Do you believe that men can [1:07:01] become women? Ma'am, as the director of the museum, that's not relevant in this case. It's very [1:07:08] relevant. You've got men dressed up as women and you have them on displays in front of kids. Do you [1:07:14] think men can become women? Yes or no? So RuPaul's Drag Race, which is the- It's a man. RuPaul is a man [1:07:21] who dresses like a woman, literally. Correct. What is a woman, Dr. Hartig? As a director and as a historian, [1:07:31] it's not my opportunity. You sexualized the American history museum. So this is a fair question. [1:07:36] What is a woman? So at the museum- What is a woman? We strive to represent and not categorize all Americans. [1:07:44] Okay. I have another question for you. There's a glossary at the museum that informs visitors that [1:07:48] while American culture traditionally recognizes two genders, other countries recognize three or more. [1:07:55] So enlighten me this morning. How many genders are there? Ma'am, which glossary? This is- Okay. [1:08:04] This is a display and it has a glossary that says other countries recognize three or more genders. So I [1:08:10] would like you to enlighten me today. You're the director of the American history museum who has [1:08:14] sexualized things in front of kids. I want to know, I want to ask you, how many genders are there? [1:08:21] So first of all, I'm happy to- How many? How many genders are there? Sure. And what are they? [1:08:28] I'm not sure which glossary you're speaking of. Of course. I know that you don't. You knew exactly [1:08:32] what this hearing was about today. One of your exhibits at the American history museum says sometimes [1:08:38] gender isn't revealed at birth. So when is gender revealed? So when was your gender revealed to you, [1:08:47] Dr. Hartig? I don't really think that's relevant to the- It is relevant. You have a display at the [1:08:52] American history museum talking about gender isn't always revealed at birth. So when was your gender [1:08:59] revealed? So since I am a PhD and- I wasn't done yet, but I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. [1:09:08] Thank you, Ms. Mase. Mr. Walkinshell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm actually glad we're having this [1:09:17] hearing today of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, because finally we have abandoned the [1:09:23] pretense that this subcommittee has anything to do with government efficiency. Just like Elon Musk's [1:09:30] Doge wasn't about efficiency, it was an ideological purge of the federal government. This assault on the [1:09:38] Smithsonian has nothing to do with efficiency. It's an ideological effort, to quote Mr. Gonzalez, [1:09:45] a cultural battle. But let's go ahead and talk about rewriting history. Let's talk about it. Because [1:09:52] that's what the Trump administration is doing as we speak. It's Jackie Robinson. Before he stepped on to [1:09:58] Ebbets Field, he wore the uniform of the United States Army. He broke Major League Baseball's color [1:10:04] barrier in 1947. He didn't just transform a sport. He challenged one of the last great institutions of [1:10:13] legalized segregation in America. He helped move our country closer to the promise that talent and [1:10:18] character matter more than the color of your skin. I guess for President Trump's Department of Defense, [1:10:24] he was part of the DEI problem we've heard about today. Because he got erased, removed from the website, [1:10:32] canceled, restored only after public outcry. The Tuskegee Airmen flew more than 15,000 combat missions [1:10:42] during World War II, escorting American bombers over Europe. They didn't just help defeat Nazi Germany, [1:10:50] they helped to dismantle segregation in the U.S. Armed Forces. Somehow, they're also part of the DEI [1:10:59] problem we've heard about today because they were erased. The Air Force removed a documentary on the [1:11:07] Tuskegee Airmen from their course instruction. Navajo code talkers. Young Navajo Marines developed an [1:11:15] unbreakable battlefield code that Japanese forces couldn't crack. It helped American forces win some [1:11:22] of the toughest battles in the Pacific, saved countless American lives. Also, apparently, part of [1:11:30] the DEI problem because they got erased. Now the Trump administration and my Republican colleagues are [1:11:41] focusing their anti-DEI erasure efforts on the Smithsonian. Last week, they released this report we've [1:11:49] discussed today saying the museum has been captured by, quote, extreme political activism. It's pretty extreme, [1:11:58] deleting Jackie Robinson. Why the report? Because the museum tells the full American story. It examines [1:12:07] slavery alongside liberty. It discusses immigration alongside citizenship. It recognizes the struggle for [1:12:16] civil rights alongside our founding ideals and, yes, the flaws of our founders. But according to this [1:12:24] administration, that's not patriotic. They erased Jackie Robinson. They erased the Tuskegee Airmen. They erased [1:12:34] the Navajo code talkers. And now they want to take their big orange eraser to a proud American institution, [1:12:46] the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian. We should reject this effort to erase our history because in America, the truth has always been [1:12:56] our strength. It's not a weakness, Mr. Gonzalez and Dr. Spaulding. Dr. Blight, can you tell us the damage that is done [1:13:08] when history, Jackie Robinson, Navajo code talkers, Tuskegee Airmen is erased from websites, from course instructions? How does that hurt America? [1:13:20] Well, if you want inspiration from history, you can't start any better than this. Delete Jackie Robinson, [1:13:27] and he'll come back. His name was Hank Aaron. His name was Frank Robinson. His name was Bob Gibson. And I [1:13:33] could name a thousand more. Good luck trying to delete anything that people really care about in our history. [1:13:40] They're going to find out about it. And the fact that you can even delete it is something they can take [1:13:46] because they have some faith in institutions like the Smithsonian, which they love and want to go to, [1:13:54] will bring that story to them. What's lost is curiosity, understanding. You know, our job as historians [1:14:08] is to understand the dead. Sorry, you become relevant when you're dead. But the reason we want to understand the dead [1:14:17] is so that we can really understand the living. And to delete the dead because somehow they don't fit a [1:14:26] category that we like in the present is to soil the present. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Gale from Texas. [1:14:38] You recognize me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding this hearing and to the witnesses for [1:14:45] taking the time to travel all the way out here. Director Hartig, thank you for being here. [1:14:51] Would you say that the goal of history, even if it's not properly carried out, would you say that the goal of history [1:14:58] is to be objective? Thank you, sir, for the question. You know, I think that there are many goals of history [1:15:11] and certainly as you collect, as we do, examine evidence, create scholarship. Is objectivity one of the goals of history? [1:15:19] We strive to be objective and nonpartisan and not based on any ideology. So it's one of the goals. [1:15:25] Doesn't that seem a little bit concerning? It certainly does to me because as part of this [1:15:31] white supremacy document that your organization has promoted, objectivity is a core and defining [1:15:39] aspect of white supremacy culture. Do you think that it's the goal of the Smithsonian Institution to [1:15:44] promote white supremacy culture? Sir, do you mind sharing with me which document? [1:15:50] White supremacy culture right here. This is part of the mass action toolkit that your organization [1:15:58] has promoted for several years now under your leadership. Are you promoting a white supremacy [1:16:07] culture at the Smithsonian? Am I promoting a white? Ma'am, is this a difficult question? [1:16:16] No, sir. I'm just thinking about the mass action toolkit. We didn't develop it. But back to your question, [1:16:24] no, we're not promoting any ideology. Does it concern you that your goal is objectivity? One of your [1:16:30] goals is objectivity and your mass action toolkit references objectivity as a defining characteristic [1:16:37] of white supremacy culture? It's not our toolkit. It is your toolkit. You've been promoting it for quite [1:16:43] some time. We did not come up with a toolkit, sir. But you've been promoting it. It is used as a [1:16:49] reference, I believe, probably in 2019, 2020. Yes, under your leadership, it has been used as a [1:16:56] reference. Is Mickey Mouse racist? Mickey Mouse is not racist. It's not racist. According to the [1:17:02] Smithsonian Institution, one of your exhibits referenced Mickey Mouse is representing, quote, [1:17:09] vestiges of long-standing traditions of blackface minstrelsy. Would you describe that as racist? [1:17:16] No, the historical trajectory of the origins of Mickey Mouse tied directly to- [1:17:23] So Mickey Mouse is rooted in racism. Is that your testimony? [1:17:27] No, sir. It's rooted in minstrelsy. [1:17:28] Minstrelsy, and you don't think the blackface minstrelsy is racist? [1:17:32] It had certain obvious racial overtones that have been well documented. [1:17:37] Do you think that that's problematic that Mickey Mouse also has those racial overtones? [1:17:41] It's not for me to determine what's problematic. It's determined to me what's accurate. [1:17:46] Is that right? Yes, sir. [1:17:48] Is it important to be polite? Excuse me, sir? [1:17:51] Is it important to be polite? Yes, sir. [1:17:54] It's also interesting because the same mass action toolkit that your organization has been [1:18:01] promoting references politeness as a defining characteristic of white supremacy culture. [1:18:08] Ma'am, are you a white supremacist? No, sir. [1:18:11] You're not. Can you help me square why your organization says that being polite [1:18:18] is part of being a white supremacist? I'm not exactly familiar with that passage of the mass [1:18:25] action toolkit, which is not one that we developed. I can show you the passage right here. [1:18:29] I don't, pardon me? I said I just read you the passage from it. [1:18:35] And then your question was, sir? We're going to move on. What is Latina power? [1:18:41] What is Latino power? Latina power. Latina power would be the forces derived from being a Latina. [1:18:52] Do you think that it's appropriate for the Smithsonian Institution [1:18:55] to sell Latina power paraphernalia? Hats, mugs, other things that say Latina power? [1:19:04] I believe that the merchandise our store sells [1:19:09] I'm asking you if it's appropriate. [1:19:11] Tries to reflect the richness of of the communities. [1:19:14] So your testimony is that it is appropriate? [1:19:17] Those are your words, sir. [1:19:19] I'm asking you, is it appropriate to sell Latina power paraphernalia? It's a yes or no question. [1:19:23] I don't have control over what is sold in our stores. [1:19:26] I'm asking you if it's appropriate. I didn't ask you if you have control over it. [1:19:29] Is it appropriate? I understood that, sir. [1:19:31] Yes or no? [1:19:32] Again, we strive to represent all Americans and including in our merchandise. [1:19:35] Is it appropriate, yes or no? [1:19:37] We strive to represent all Americans in our museums, including in our merchandise. [1:19:42] Is that right? My time's up. [1:19:44] Thank you, sir. [1:19:46] Thanks, sir. Mr. Mafumi from Maryland. [1:19:49] The chairman of a UC request? [1:19:51] Yes. [1:19:51] I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a Newsweek article from March 19, 2025, titled [1:19:58] Jackie Robinson's Army History Deleted by Pentagon. [1:20:04] Sword. [1:20:06] Anything else? [1:20:07] Mr. Mafumi, you're recognized. [1:20:09] Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. [1:20:11] I only have five minutes, so I'm going to try to make the most out of it by making some very clear points. [1:20:18] Black people across this country are outraged at what is happening now with these efforts [1:20:25] to do away with the African American Museum and all of the Smithsonian. [1:20:30] They're outraged because they've lived too many years, been through too many struggles, [1:20:36] suffered too many bruises, and clearly have very, very, very little to show for that sojourn [1:20:43] here in this country. [1:20:44] I want to be real clear about this. If you erase it, we will replace it. It's that damn simple. [1:20:53] We don't seem to learn. If anything, we should be looking at history to learn [1:20:58] and to make sure that we are taking advantage of what we've learned. [1:21:04] You know, it was Abraham Lincoln in 1848 who addressed his countrymen in Edwardsville, Illinois, [1:21:11] and he said, and I quote, when you have succeeded in dehumanizing the Negro, when you have put him [1:21:20] down and made it but for him to be, but as the beast of the field, when you have extinguished his soul [1:21:28] in this world and placed him where the ray of hope is blown out, as in the darkness of the damned, [1:21:37] are you quite sure, he asked, that the demon you have roused will not one day turn and rend you? [1:21:45] He said, what constitutes the bulwark of our freedom and our independence? [1:21:51] It is not, said Lincoln, our crown embattlements. It is not our armies and our navies. It is not our [1:21:59] bristling seacoast. All those things are not our reliance against tyranny because they can all be [1:22:05] turned against us without having made us weaker for the struggle. Our reliance, he said, as Americans [1:22:13] is in the love of liberty which God has planted deep within all of us regardless of how we look [1:22:19] and where we come from. He said, our reliance is in the spirit of freedom which prides itself as the [1:22:26] heritage of all men in all lands everywhere. And then he admonished, destroy that spirit [1:22:36] and you would have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doorstep. Ignore, he said, the chains [1:22:43] of human bondage and you prepare one day for your own limbs to wear them. A custom, he said, to trample [1:22:52] on the rights of other people and you would have lost the creative genius of your own American [1:22:59] independence and as such would become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises [1:23:07] among you. Sound familiar? History taught us and still teaches us that we can't keep making the same [1:23:15] mistakes. So I know this is a big discussion about a lot of aspects about the museum. But I'm here as a [1:23:23] black man who grew up in segregation, who wasn't allowed to go certain places, who drank from a water [1:23:31] fountain that said colored, who found his mother and his father unable to do anything other than basic day [1:23:38] work. And if for no one else, if for them and their spirit and all the other nameless and faceless black [1:23:45] men in this country and black women who made their bodies bridges, that some of us could get to the [1:23:52] university, that some of us could get to a good job, that some of us could get to the United States, [1:23:58] if for no other reason. I want this to go out loud and clear and I'm not speaking just on behalf of [1:24:04] myself. I know that I speak on behalf of so many people who are not here today. We will not let you [1:24:11] destroy that museum. No matter how long it takes, how many battles are required, how much effort is needed, [1:24:18] we will not allow that to happen. Unless you find a way to kill all of us and walk over our bodies to [1:24:27] change history. That history is too sacred. It is too precious. And it will not be erased. Because as I [1:24:35] said, if you attempt to erase it, we will continue to replace it over and over and over again. I yield back, [1:24:44] Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mafumi. Mr. Burleson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. [1:24:51] Chairman. Director Hartig, what do you believe is the core purpose of the National Museum of History, [1:24:58] of American History? Thank you, sir. And good morning. The beauty, I think, of the museum is to truly [1:25:11] take the over two million objects we have. What is the core purpose? What is your mission? What's the [1:25:18] core purpose? And to tell the richest story of America's past that we can. Our mission is to empower [1:25:22] people to create a more just and compassionate future by preserving, sharing, and exploring the [1:25:27] complexities of our past. Okay. In your 2024 presentation, you said the museum changed its [1:25:34] mission in part to help people get out of the quote-unquote America first mentality. So my question [1:25:43] is, what's specifically wrong about the American first mentality? So we changed the mission like most [1:25:52] organizations and corporations do when I came, that we had an expired strategic plan and we created a [1:25:59] new mission. So, okay, is your contention that you just changed it because you just needed to change it [1:26:05] under your direction? No, most directors changed it. I'm asking specifically, you made the statement that [1:26:11] you have to get out of the quote-unquote America first mentality. What did you mean by that? I'm not sure which [1:26:19] of my public appearances you're referring to, sir. Director Hardick, let me ask you, are you America [1:26:26] first? I'm a very proud American. That's great to hear. Do you love America? I love this country [1:26:33] unconditionally. That's great to hear. At one point you stated that loving America is very complicated. [1:26:40] Let me ask you this, recently we had visitors all over the globe for the World Cup. What I think is the [1:26:48] common thread that we saw across all social media platforms was an astonishment and, you know, [1:26:56] astonishment and amazement of things that preconceived ideas that they had about this country. [1:27:03] Some of those preconceived ideas were that Americans were dangerous, that everywhere they would go there [1:27:08] would be shootings and people, you know, all of the crime that would occur. There were preconceived notions [1:27:14] that Americans were all hostile and xenophobic, that Americans were, that everyone is living in [1:27:23] poverty unless you're rich. Do you think, I mean, after this happened, what do you think caused the rest [1:27:30] of the world to believe all of these ills about the United States of America, these falsehoods about this [1:27:36] country? You know, the World Cup was truly remarkable in terms of how it brought everyone together. I'm [1:27:46] I'm unsure what they, what they were using as their basis for that, those conclusions, sir. Well, [1:27:52] some of our people are spreading false information about the United States, right? And you say you love [1:27:57] this country, America's first, you proud of America's history? Absolutely, warts and all. Okay. So, [1:28:06] wouldn't it be nice if the rest of the world saw the history of the United States as being the one, [1:28:11] the country that led the world through economic prosperity, particularly after World War II with the [1:28:18] Marshall Plan, led multiple nations out of prosperity? Absolutely, sir. And in our Mars Hall [1:28:23] of American Enterprise, which tells the amazing story of American business, they'd see just that. [1:28:30] Wouldn't it be great if we had, if we, the rest of the world saw us as what we truly are, is the one [1:28:36] country that led the world and inspired them to eliminate slavery, to eliminate all of the genocides [1:28:44] that happen? Absolutely. And I think when they come through the museum, overwhelmingly, wherever they're [1:28:50] from, you know, from, you know, from Nashville, Tennessee to Nome, Alaska, they come out and they [1:28:58] say they come out more inspired. So what was the origin of that? What was the origin of what created [1:29:04] all of these great things that inspired the rest of the world, that lifted people out of poverty, [1:29:09] that ended genocides, or at least inspired the world to end their genocides? What was the original [1:29:16] precipice of that? What was the original beginning? So the revolutionary era, of course, with its [1:29:22] brilliant founding documents, with the Declaration of Independence, with that sword, those two soaring [1:29:27] paragraphs. So I think that what we're trying to compel, what I'm trying to convey is that [1:29:32] when the rest of the world is having a hard time with disinformation, there's enough negative things that [1:29:38] are being said, you would think the one institution that would be trumpeting the great and wonderful [1:29:45] things that this country has done, especially at a time where we're celebrating the 250th anniversary [1:29:51] of this country, would be to showcase that, to showcase our founders. And with that, I yield back. [1:29:58] Yeah. Thank you, sir. And absolutely, I agree. Thank you. Mr. Pross from Florida, you're recognized, sir. [1:30:04] Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I got to say, listening to this hearing, I think many of my colleagues would [1:30:10] benefit from actually stepping foot in the Smithsonian institutions, maybe not just reading talking [1:30:16] points from the White House, or reading what they're supposed to say. I've been in these museums. [1:30:24] I mean, talking about the National Museum of African American History and Culture specifically, [1:30:28] it tells the whole story, the ugly and how America and Americans came together to get rid of slavery, [1:30:36] to fight Jim Crow, but it tells the whole story. So maybe this committee should do like a field trip [1:30:45] and actually go through these institutions to actually see the full story be told, because I [1:30:51] would contend that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have never stepped foot in [1:30:54] many of these institutions, at least not in a long time. Director Hartick, thank you for being here. [1:31:01] Can you please share a little bit about your experience as a historian? [1:31:03] Oh, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Frost. I came to history as an undergraduate. I thought I was going [1:31:11] to be an English major, but I took my first history class, and I was rowing crew for UCLA at the time, [1:31:17] and I hoisted my 10-speed on my shoulder, and I walked up the stairs to the history department. I [1:31:23] declared that I wanted to be an historian. And since then, as a public servant, and as a public historian, [1:31:30] in which we look at archives, and material culture, and museum work, and historic preservation work, [1:31:37] I've been completely motivated to figure out how then I can best serve the nation. And being the [1:31:46] Elizabeth McMillan director of the museum certainly is the highest calling. [1:31:51] Yeah, thank you. Mr. Gonzalez, are you a professional historian? [1:31:54] Actually, I have been paid by publishers to write history, so I am. [1:31:59] Yeah. Okay. How many exhibits have you curated? [1:32:02] Oh, no, no. I'm not a curator. [1:32:04] Okay. How many exhibits have you curated? It's a separate question. [1:32:06] I haven't curated any exhibits because I'm not a curator. [1:32:10] Dr. Hartig, thank you. You haven't curated any exhibits. Thank you. [1:32:13] Yeah. Dr. Hartig, is your work partisan? [1:32:18] No, sir. Our work is not. We don't seek to advance any political agenda. [1:32:22] Yes, ma'am. Does the museum take political sides or have a political agenda? [1:32:27] No, sir. Does the museum have exhibits that challenge people's views, [1:32:31] or may make them feel uncomfortable? [1:32:34] History is incredibly challenging, and by then its very nature, if we tell it in its richness, [1:32:41] we absolutely, I think, have objects that can make people uncomfortable. And, you know, [1:32:47] I hearken back to Secretary Bunch's words that he was told by a sharecropper that, you know, tell the [1:32:54] people both what they want to hear and what they need to hear. So I think depending on where you are, [1:33:01] certainly there can be a level of discomfort. [1:33:03] Thank you. What review process does the museum use before opening an exhibit? [1:33:10] So the museum goes through a rigorous scholarly presentation of the way in which exhibit objects, [1:33:19] and stories, and interpretation relate to one another. That's reviewed extensively. Also, [1:33:25] depending on the size of the exhibit, our In Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness exhibition, [1:33:31] our 250 object exhibition for America 250. I went through exhaustive review with also peer reviews [1:33:39] as well. Then it is presented up to the undersecretaries, and often the secretary in conversation [1:33:47] with our review. Thank you. [1:33:47] Thank you, director. Mr. Gonzalez, who should decide what's in a museum? [1:33:51] Mr. Gonzalez, I would say that the curator, but also overseen by the leadership of the museum, [1:34:01] the taxpayer does spend $1.1 billion in the Smithsonian. So the Smithsonian is accountable [1:34:07] to the American taxpayer. All right, thank you. I have a yes or no question. Should exhibits capture [1:34:13] American history as it happened without bias? Yes. Was slavery a part of American history? Yes. [1:34:19] Was Jim Crow a part of American history? Yes. Is it important that museums discuss [1:34:24] these topics at length so people understand the gravity? Absolutely, yes. Do you believe that [1:34:29] American art should be consistent with the Trump administration's cultural and political goals? [1:34:34] I have no idea what that is. I cannot comment on that. Do you believe that American art, [1:34:39] or do you believe that the Smithsonian's goals should be consistent with the Trump's [1:34:43] administration's cultural and political goals? I don't, again, I don't know how you define that. [1:34:49] I cannot answer it. You seem to have a long standing personal vendetta against the Smithsonian [1:34:54] that started well before the White House report. And I ask you those questions because I'm concerned [1:34:59] about censorship. I'm no historian either, just like you, but I know that Nazi Germany weaponized art [1:35:06] and museums to demonize certain groups. Dr. Blight, if Congress or the White House starts deciding [1:35:13] historical interpretation, how is that different from political censorship? [1:35:16] It is political censorship. And their model may indeed be Joseph Goebbels' Committee on Enlightenment, [1:35:30] which is what the Nazis called their committee that tried to control museums. [1:35:35] I'm sorry, sir. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, I have a UC request? [1:35:40] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to enter into the Record As Unanimous Consent Reuters article from January [1:35:46] 2025. Trump's anti-DEI order yanks Air Force videos of Tuskegee Airmen and female pilots. [1:35:54] So ordered. Mr. Fallon, Texas, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Hardig, [1:36:03] you hold a very prestigious position. It's an awesome responsibility. We're honoring American history, [1:36:10] and we have a rich history in these past 250 years. In 2019, when you took the, did you take the job in 19? [1:36:17] Is that right? Good morning, sir. And yes, I did. Okay. And what was your pay then? [1:36:22] How much did they pay you? My starting pay was $300,000. And what's it today? [1:36:29] It is about $370,000, which is paid from an endowment, not federal funds. Okay. But you do [1:36:37] agree that you work for the American people? Every day, sir. All right. And all of them, [1:36:42] even the ones you disagree with? We welcome everyone to the museum. All right. Wonderful. Yes. The [1:36:46] majority of the funds for the museum paid for by the American taxpayer? So of the Smithsonian's [1:36:52] appropriation, for which we're very grateful. The majority is? Yes. Okay. Just because we have [1:36:56] limited time. Yeah. So if I may, sir. So again, sorry, we have very limited time, [1:37:01] but it's a majority. All right. We agree there. Webster's, I looked up the definition of history, [1:37:05] because it's very important in our conversation today. And it's a chronological record of significant [1:37:09] events, such as affecting a nation or an institution, often including an explanation of their [1:37:14] causes. And as such, I think we hopefully would all agree that you need to take great care when [1:37:20] presenting history. It needs to be fair and balanced and as objective as any human being can be to and [1:37:26] for all Americans and not colored with, you know, we don't want to color the museum in our history with [1:37:34] your personal beliefs, biases, ideology, and preconceived notions. And I think it's important to take that [1:37:40] step back and present a comprehensive look at American history that displays all of it, good, [1:37:48] bad, ugly, triumphant, et cetera. Director, do you believe you've done that these past seven years? [1:37:54] Yes, to the best of my ability. John Smithson, when he donated, I think it was in 1826 when he donated his [1:37:59] fortune, he said it was to increase in diffusion of knowledge among men. I think we would all agree [1:38:05] people now. And the precursor to your museum was the National Museum of History and Technology, [1:38:10] and that's important in a minute. And they wanted to always focus on the story of American progress. [1:38:16] Director, do you love the United States of America? I do unequivocally. Wonderful. I do as well, we [1:38:22] agree. And on balance, do you believe the United States has been a force of good in the world? [1:38:26] On balance. The United States is the world's longest consecutive running democracy. [1:38:33] So I would take that as a yes? Truly remarkable. [1:38:35] Just because we have limited time. Yes? Yes, sir. [1:38:37] Two out of two. Okay. And you believe we still are today? Pardon me, sir? [1:38:41] And you believe we still are today? Absolutely. [1:38:43] Yes. Wonderful. So the United States, would you agree with the statement that we're the greatest [1:38:47] nation history has ever known? I think that I would refer judgment in terms of- [1:38:53] All right. So I got to take that as a no, because it's an easy answer. Yes, yes, yes. So we got three [1:38:57] out of four. That's not bad. Under your leadership, did you direct staff to frame and tie all the exhibits [1:39:03] in the museum to seven core social issues? No, sir. [1:39:09] You did not. Not on like race, gender, climate change, immigration, economic equality, technical. [1:39:16] All right. Well, 250th anniversary. We agree that America is 250 years old. [1:39:20] Absolutely. As far as a focus and highlight for the 250th, [1:39:25] did you have any new exhibits on George Washington? So we have about 25- [1:39:31] Again, I apologize just because we have such a limited time. [1:39:34] Mm-hmm. Did your museum decide to say, hey, you know, it's the 250th anniversary, [1:39:39] we're going to feature George Washington? We do feature George Washington. [1:39:42] Can somebody take this? I don't mind. We featured George Washington. [1:39:47] No, but did you have- You're not answering the question. I'm so sorry. [1:39:51] Did you have any new, the 250th anniversary, and you decide as a board, [1:39:55] we're going to have a new exhibit that highlights and focuses and celebrates George Washington? [1:40:02] We highlight and celebrate George Washington. So you didn't have any new ones? [1:40:06] It is a new exhibit. You have a new one just for George Washington, [1:40:09] in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. For the 250. Great. How about Thomas Jefferson? [1:40:12] He is predominantly both- Ma'am, Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. We have very limited time. [1:40:18] How about Thomas Jefferson? Did you have a new exhibit on Thomas Jefferson? [1:40:22] We had a new exhibit that included Thomas Jefferson, George- But you didn't [1:40:26] solely focus on Thomas Jefferson. How about Ben Franklin? [1:40:28] Pardon me? Did you have a new exhibit on Ben Franklin? [1:40:36] We had a new exhibit that included Mr. Franklin. All right. So on the Founding Fathers. How about [1:40:40] Great Inventors, Great American Inventors? Any new exhibits on that? [1:40:44] We had a new exhibit that included many Great American Inventors. [1:40:48] A brand new one for the 250th? Yes, sir. [1:40:50] Yeah, like Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Nicholas Tesla, Eli Whitney, John Deere. [1:40:55] Did you also have one that celebrated a 12-day pride celebration and create a [1:41:01] special display honoring a queer Mexican and undocumented man? [1:41:06] For the 250th? No, sir. [1:41:08] Did you do that this year? No, sir. [1:41:11] A year under oath. The best of my knowledge. [1:41:13] Okay. All right. My time's up. I yield back. [1:41:17] Thank you. Ms. Presley, you're recognized. [1:41:21] Thank you. Our shared American history, our shared American history is under attack. [1:41:28] Donald Trump is working overtime to turn our museums into instruments of MAGA propaganda, [1:41:34] rather than places where American people and visitors from around the world can encounter our [1:41:40] factual history. I had the privilege this weekend of visiting the Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, [1:41:46] Tennessee, a Smithsonian affiliate. And what I took in there was factual. It was powerful. [1:41:54] It was equal parts devastating and also instructive, which is why people are working so hard to erase it. [1:42:03] And let me just be clear. Try as you might to erase black history and to erase black people, [1:42:08] you cannot erase us. But I digress. The work of our museums is so very important. [1:42:17] Dr. Hardick, that work deserves visibility, gratitude, protection, not vilification and threats. [1:42:24] Since taking office, the Trump administration has become synonymous with fascism. While there is no one [1:42:29] set definition, historians have generally agreed upon several characteristics. Dr. Blight, [1:42:34] you were selected to be the president of the Society of American Historians. So I'm going to ask you to [1:42:39] keep me honest on this. Now, what I've learned is that fascism usually includes elements like [1:42:46] undermining fair elections, a constant targeting of vulnerable people and labeling them as enemies, [1:42:52] and an overwhelming amount of government corruption. Sounds eerily familiar. A damning and devastating [1:43:00] deja vu of the moment we find ourselves in right now. The element I want to focus on today is the fascist [1:43:05] hostility to our history, academia, museums, and the arts. Dr. Blight, looking at history, [1:43:11] why do fascists and autocrats attack cultural institutions like museums? [1:43:17] Madam Congressman, it's because they believe that's where you can control people's minds. [1:43:23] You can sustain a social order. You can control education. You can control the arts. You can control [1:43:30] writing and creativity itself. It is not just the Nazis. There have been plenty of other [1:43:37] neo-fascist or fascist regimes that have attempted to do that. Thank you, Dr. Yad. This is this anti-freedom [1:43:44] agenda. They want to control what books we read, what is in our museums, what we do with our bodies, [1:43:51] attack the free press, degrade free speech. It's an anti-freedom agenda. Dr. Blight, [1:43:58] what warning signs do you look for when society starts drifting towards fascism and authoritarianism? [1:44:04] First, I look for the breakup of political parties. Then I look for this kind of assault [1:44:11] on cultural institutions, on things like the National Park Service, which reaches more students [1:44:18] than any of us who teach in universities. I look for attempts to control the media, [1:44:24] which is the dissemination of knowledge. And I look for any attempt at the control over free minds, [1:44:34] free speech, freedom itself. Thank you. History gives us a chilling example of what happens when a [1:44:40] government decides that it alone will define what counts as good art and acceptable history. I've heard [1:44:45] the stories passed down in Jewish families of Germany in the 1930s. As the Nazi regime consolidated political [1:44:50] power, it turned its attentions to museums and to galleries. The regime started with criticism [1:44:55] labeling art as degenerate and claiming it didn't fit with the national culture. But then they started [1:45:00] attacking museum directors and curators, and eventually art pieces were confiscated from museums [1:45:05] and locked away or sold. In 1939, Nazis publicly burned thousands of paintings that they couldn't profit [1:45:11] from. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum details much of this history. Fascist attacks on [1:45:18] museums are not just about history. Today, the occupant of the White House labels entire aspects of [1:45:24] American history as quote unquote divisive and uses the power of his office to pressure the Smithsonian to [1:45:30] remove, whitewash, and to rewrite our stories. I'm not here to exaggerate, just to educate. And what is [1:45:37] spurring this all on? What fuels this? Fear of a black planet. Fear of a multiracial democracy. The occupant of [1:45:47] the Oval Office Project 2025. This cult of MAGA. They are fueled by fear and hate. Dr. Blight, when people see [1:45:56] the warning signs that you mentioned, why is it important that they speak up and take action? [1:46:02] Well, it's important because if the people don't stand up, they lose these institutions. And as you just [1:46:07] suggested, the black world came to America for the World Cup. I wonder if I wonder if people notice that [1:46:15] the world is black and brown and the teams from European countries were black and brown. And we ought to [1:46:23] take some lesson from that. And by the way, to that point earlier, sorry, that they were getting disinformation. [1:46:32] Well, who were they getting the disinformation from? And let's remember what fascinates the world about [1:46:38] America is our contradictions. Your time's up, sir. So fascinating. Thank you. I'm sorry. Your time's up. [1:46:46] Mr. Jack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is to Mr. Gonzalez. I appreciate your testimony today. [1:46:53] We've heard some pretty concerning things throughout this hearing. I'm curious, from your perspective, [1:46:57] what's fueling this ideological takeover of many of our institutions? Yes. Thank you, [1:47:03] Senator Jack. Good to see you again. I agree with Dr. Blight that fascists [1:47:06] try to seize the past to control the future. But it really is the trademark of Marxists. This is what [1:47:12] Marxists do. I think that people who want to truly transform the country, seize the cultural [1:47:19] institutions in order to mold how people think. This is their own words. The leadership of the Smithsonian [1:47:26] says constantly that it wants to use the museum to transform America for societal transformation. [1:47:32] They see history itself as a tool, an instrument to change society. So you only have to quote what [1:47:40] they say they want to do. What would you say are the most egregious examples of this takeover that [1:47:46] you've seen on display of the Smithsonian? Well, I think we have gone through many of them here. [1:47:53] Let me correct the record because it was said earlier that the mass toolkit was not produced by the [1:47:58] Smithsonian. On page 64 it says that it was co-authored by half a dozen current and former [1:48:05] Smithsonian employees. The fact that the staff of the Smithsonian is trained, you know, was trained for [1:48:12] four years after, for three years after the Smithsonian apologized, I think that's pretty damning. It was [1:48:19] trained for four years on how to use history to transform America. I think the fact that the, for example, [1:48:26] on the Franklin exhibit, they pondered whether he had ever done experiments, electrical, electroshock [1:48:35] on indentured servants or slaves without producing any evidence whatsoever. I think that is pretty [1:48:41] shocking. Why smear a founding father such as Ben Franklin by pondering such a really bizarre thing? [1:48:53] Well said. Director Hardig, I'm curious. We've heard a lot of concerning examples, as just referenced. [1:49:01] Do you have any regrets in your tenure thus far if some of the exhibits have been displayed? Do you regret [1:49:06] any of the exhibits? And if so, which? Good morning, sir. I am incredibly proud of the work we've done, [1:49:14] but we are imperfect and we surely have made mistakes, but I don't have any regrets. Which mistakes [1:49:21] would you say you've made? There are always factual errors. One of my favorite currently is that one [1:49:28] of our volunteers has pointed out that we've been mislabeling a coin in the American presidency exhibit [1:49:33] for years, and we were, of course, you know, slightly embarrassed about that, but we fixed it. Have you [1:49:40] had any negative feedback from Secretary Bunch or others in leadership about some of the exhibits we've [1:49:45] discussed today? Secretary Bunch and the members of leadership and I talk about many things, including our [1:49:52] exhibitions. Has there been any frustration exhibited about some of the exhibits that have happened under [1:49:58] your control? We talk about many things, and we've talked about the challenges of being an historian in [1:50:05] these times, absolutely. So one of the things I find interesting, and I'm going to take that as an evasive [1:50:10] answer, and I would submit for the record, if you want to say Secretary Bunch has criticized you, it's helpful [1:50:17] for us to hear that, but if not, we'll let that go. I'm curious if you could explain for us the [1:50:23] 603 review process, and I think this committee is very interested in exploring that and seeing what [1:50:28] feedback has come about some of these exhibits. Certainly, sir. Thank you for the question. [1:50:33] I think it started in 1995. Smithsonian Directive, SD603, requires all of our work to go through a very, [1:50:43] very rigorous review risk assessment. Most recently, it was updated last summer, enhanced by the Regents. [1:50:53] So when an exhibit goes on display, it's peer-reviewed, there's a lot of input about the exhibit from [1:50:58] people that are on staff within your purview? Absolutely, and then it's reviewed by a higher [1:51:04] committee of undersecretaries. Would you be willing to submit some of those review processes, and likewise, [1:51:10] some of the content within it, to this committee for review? I'm happy to check with our general [1:51:14] counsel and get back to you. Mr. Gonzalez, in the remaining time that we have, I'm just curious, [1:51:21] what do we do going forward? How do we resolve this? How do we fix this? Because it's clearly [1:51:24] a problem. It's dividing our country. What's the path forward? I'm saddened to say that you do need to [1:51:31] clean out house at the Smithsonian. You have to replace the leadership. I don't think the 603 review [1:51:36] process is going to fix anything. I don't think trying to reform with the present leadership is [1:51:40] going to do anything. They're committed to the things they want to do. We only have to listen [1:51:44] to what they say and look at the evidence of what they have produced. I think you need to work with [1:51:50] the Board of Regents to effect this change. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [1:51:55] Thank you. Ms. Crockett, Texas. You're recognized, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to the [1:52:03] Republican's White Pride Rally, disguised as a congressional hearing. It might be uncomfortable [1:52:09] for some people on this committee to hear about the true history of America. And I hate that for [1:52:14] them, but facts are facts. And it's a fact that there is a violent, exclusionary, discriminatory, [1:52:21] sexist and racist part of American history, where our indigenous populations were forcibly displaced from [1:52:27] their land, where thousands of Black people were unjustly lynched, where Black people were denied [1:52:33] the right to vote, and they're still trying to do it today, where women needed their husband's [1:52:37] permission to open a bank account, where people with disabilities were routinely excluded from [1:52:42] schools, workplaces, and public life, where four little Black girls were murdered by the KKK at the [1:52:47] 16th Street Baptist Church. And a lot of this wasn't that long ago. In fact, three of those little girls [1:52:53] would be 77 and one would be 74. More than 40 members of Congress serving right now would be older than them. [1:53:01] Ruby Bridges, who was the first Black child to desegregate an all-white school, is only 71 years [1:53:07] old. More than 100 members of Congress serving right now are older than her. So attacks on the [1:53:12] Smithsonian or any other institution that's willing to tell the true history of America is not only an [1:53:20] attempt to rewrite history, it's an attempt to erase history. So Dr. Blight, if Republicans are going to [1:53:26] ban books, penalize schools and universities, attack museums, if states continue to change curriculum, [1:53:33] where do Americans go to learn about the complicated, sometimes racist and violent parts of American [1:53:38] history? Thank you for the question. I think they will have to keep going to the same institutions and [1:53:46] we have to keep fighting to preserve what we are doing in those institutions. They have to keep going to [1:53:52] public schools. They have to keep going to the public libraries. They have to keep going to the great [1:53:56] Smithsonian. Look, the purpose of history is to enlighten us, inspire us, trouble us, bother us, [1:54:07] sometimes make us angry. I find it hard to believe that a young person could go through the Museum of [1:54:14] American History and not come out at least inspired with the single most important thing, [1:54:19] a sense of the past, a sense of history. Americans have to keep going to those places they trust. We have to [1:54:30] keep those institutions trustworthy. Thank you so much. In fact, that takes me to Dr. Hardick. They accuse you and [1:54:38] the Smithsonian of sowing division in this country. However, before the White House deleted it, the [1:54:45] Department of Justice and Homeland Security found the biggest domestic threat to the United States is violent [1:54:51] white supremacists. So I have a couple of questions for you. First, to the best of your knowledge, has the [1:54:56] museum ever been linked to any violent act that has occurred in the United States or against the U.S. [1:55:01] government? Thank you, ma'am. Not to the best of my knowledge. I don't think many of these white [1:55:07] supremacists can even read, but to the best of your knowledge, can you identify a single artifact in your [1:55:12] museum that would divide the country? To the best of my knowledge, ma'am, no. I hope that they unite the [1:55:22] country through a shared understanding of our past. Do you think or do you ask the political [1:55:28] affiliation of any of your employees before you hire them? Absolutely not, ma'am. It's against the [1:55:34] Hatch Act of 1939. I'm glad that you know the law, but nevertheless. Do you ask if they've donated to [1:55:41] political campaigns? Absolutely not, ma'am. It's against the Hatch Act of 1939. We need a briefing in [1:55:48] this building, but nevertheless. Do you only hire non-white people? No, ma'am. In fact, almost 60% of [1:55:56] the Smithsonian's total workforce is men and more than 50% is white. 90% of Smithsonian employees [1:56:04] making senior level pay are white and 60% of them are men. I don't understand this fetish that these [1:56:12] white guys with fragile egos have with trying to feel oppressed. It reminds me of the same people [1:56:19] MLK was referring to when he said, quote, they believe that American society is essentially hospitable [1:56:25] to fair play and to steady growth towards a middle-class utopia embodying racial harmony, [1:56:31] but unfortunately this is a fantasy of self-deception and comfortable vanity. I want to go back real quick [1:56:39] though, Dr. Blight, because you talked about the World Cup. The World Cup that captured the imaginations [1:56:46] of the entire world when they saw all of these people of color that was playing for all these teams. And [1:56:52] ultimately, if you recall, the last two teams, it was Argentina and Spain, and it seemed like the vast [1:56:59] majority of the world was rooting for Argentina or actually against Argentina, right? And why was that? Just give me [1:57:07] an explanation if you could guess, if you'll just let them finish the answer. Spain had the best team, [1:57:13] maybe that's why they were rooting for them. There's also a racist history that exists as [1:57:19] relates to Argentina. Mr. Byer, Mr. Byer, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Crockett. [1:57:24] Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me wave onto the committee. And Mr. Chairman, thank you for that [1:57:29] sort of exaggerated opening video of Dr. Hartig, which I thought simply and respectfully recognized that our [1:57:37] European ancestors and the African slaves they brought over came to settle and claim lands that [1:57:43] had been home to earlier immigrants, those we call Native Americans that came between 15 and 30,000 years [1:57:49] ago. Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel points out that our virus and bacteria killed the majority of [1:57:55] them. And then we proceeded to take their land, killed hundreds of thousands, moved them out of the [1:58:01] regions in which they lived to reservations in South Dakota, Arizona, and other places. And we have the [1:58:07] Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, the Sandy Creek Massacre, the California genocide, and the forced boarding [1:58:13] schools. Dr. Hartig, why did you think it was important to offer a small amount of homage to those [1:58:20] who had lived here before we came? Thank you, sir. It's a practice that I believe in to acknowledge the [1:58:31] layered complexity of our land and where we're standing and all those who have come before us. And an [1:58:37] honor to recognize the First Peoples of the United States. Thank you. Mr. Gonzalez talked about, [1:58:45] quote, the erasure of American culture. I feel especially listening to all the wonderful people [1:58:50] today that nothing could be further from the truth because it's all an effort to tell all of American [1:58:55] stories. Dr. Spaulding said, tell the American national story. I mean, yes, I love America. Director [1:59:01] Hartig loves America. Dr. Blight, Lonnie Bunch, but we don't pretend that we were perfect. It says, [1:59:08] you know, that we form towards a more perfect union. Dr. Blight, you talked, the most memorable phrase [1:59:17] today was sanctioned ignorance. What would Dr. Hartig's museum look like if we suppressed everything [1:59:23] that makes us uncomfortable? Well, it would be a nice, pleasing stroll through a museum and not much to [1:59:32] talk about afterwards at lunch. It is. Frederick Douglass once said, America is its contradictions, [1:59:42] all made up of its contradictions. And as a former slave, he understood that. The purpose of exhibiting [1:59:50] history, representing history, is not just to show the good and the bad. That's, of course, true. And [1:59:55] everyone here has said it. But it's to stimulate our curiosity, to ask a question that we haven't asked [2:00:01] before, to confront us with evidence we haven't seen before, a story we never knew. That's what a [2:00:08] museum should do. That's what people will then talk about as they leave. If all they learn is a patriotic [2:00:15] story, then frankly, professionally, curators and historians have not done their jobs. We do not [2:00:23] serve the state. We serve the practice of the creation and dissemination of knowledge. [2:00:31] Thank you very much. Dr. Harte, you've taken a lot of heat today for saying that your love for [2:00:35] America is complicated. I'd argue that all love is complicated because we're not perfect and the [2:00:42] people we love aren't perfect. But can you see your complicated love also being unconditional? And what [2:00:48] did you mean by complicated love? Sure. Thank you, sir. The placard that was held up in [2:00:55] a march during the summer of 2020, which I think we can all remember, said, loving you America is [2:01:05] complicated. I may be misremembering it slightly. And I used that slide in a number of my presentations [2:01:13] because I believe you can do both. I believe that loving America can be complicated as an historian. [2:01:19] I also believe that as an individual, my love for America is unconditional. [2:01:25] Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [2:01:29] Thank you, sir. And I'd like to enter Saving America's story for the record. No objections. [2:01:38] Ms. Stansberry, you're recognized. All right. Well, it has been an interesting hearing, [2:01:45] as these hearings always are. And so I have a lot of ground to cover. I want to just start out by Mr. [2:01:51] Chairman inviting you to invite the entire committee to go down to the Smithsonian Museum. The American [2:01:57] Smithsonian is a mere two miles from here. And I'd also like to invite some of my colleagues. If you [2:02:02] want to come over, we can watch Drag Race. We can have some cocktails. I think you will have a different [2:02:07] opinion once you watch it. Okay. But let's talk a little bit about the museum. I heard the testimony from [2:02:14] the majority's witnesses today. And I have to say, I think probably most Americans, with all due respect, [2:02:20] sirs, would have no idea what museums you're talking about. Because that is not the museums as [2:02:26] they are presented. And I think that, as many of my colleagues have stated today, if any of our [2:02:31] colleagues had actually stepped foot in these museums in the last few weeks or months, they would [2:02:36] actually know what's inside these museums. In fact, I go on a regular basis. I went twice over the last [2:02:42] week. And I am curious, though none of my colleagues have stuck around actually here the rest of this [2:02:47] hearing. How many people in this room have actually been to a Smithsonian Museum in the last month or [2:02:52] two? Audience? Oh, okay. All right. We got some people in here. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues [2:03:00] who felt this hearing was so important to schedule didn't even bother to wait to the end to answer the [2:03:05] question. Maybe because they couldn't. Now, let me take you on a very quick, brief, virtual tour of the [2:03:11] museum since we can't physically go over there. This is the Star Spangled Banner. This is the American [2:03:18] flag that is famous. It is one of the most prominently displayed exhibits at the American History Museum. [2:03:25] This is Abraham Lincoln's hat. This is the desk that the Declaration of Independence was written on. If [2:03:33] you had been to the Smithsonian Castle for the 250th birthday, which I was just a couple of weekends ago, [2:03:40] it is right as you walk in. So to our colleague that didn't know what was there, go over to the [2:03:44] castle. This is, of course, R2-D2. Star Wars. We've got some Star Wars fans. Ruby Slippers. This is the [2:03:52] first Wright Flyer, the Wright Brothers. And of course, this is the command module of Apollo 11, which was [2:04:01] instrumental in the first landing on the moon. That is American history. And this is [2:04:10] what's featured in the American history and other museums of the Smithsonian. And so notwithstanding [2:04:17] this crazy report that just got added into the record and notwithstanding the insane testimony we [2:04:22] heard today, I really do encourage every single person in America and across the world to come visit [2:04:29] one of our greatest institutions in this country. Now, there was a lot of conversation today about [2:04:36] what do race, gender, identity, culture have to do with the American story? That is the American story. [2:04:45] We are the greatest nation on planet Earth. We are diverse. We are huge. We are filled with every [2:04:52] language, every culture, every people on planet Earth who come here to aspire to the freedoms that [2:04:58] are protected in that declaration and that constitution that is featured prominently in the [2:05:04] Smithsonian Museum. But our museums are also keepers of our story and all its complexity and all its pain. [2:05:13] And they are there to also reflect who we are as people. So if there's merchandise that celebrates being [2:05:21] Latina, count me in. I want some. I'm going to go down and get some. If there's merchandise celebrating the [2:05:27] LGBTQ plus community. Is that appropriate? Yes. It is appropriate because this is our country and we [2:05:35] all belong here. And our colleagues don't get to decide who belongs and does not belong in this country [2:05:42] and whose history and whose culture and whose identities belong in our institutions. You get to [2:05:48] decide that the American people. And if my colleagues are so concerned about protecting children from [2:05:56] sexualization, how about you arrest some of the criminals in the Epstein case? Maybe the president himself. [2:06:03] If you're so concerned about the well-being of children in this country, how about you vote no against the bills [2:06:11] that are trying to gut our education system, the bills that are trying to gut food assistance, the bills that are [2:06:17] gutting health care instead of voting in favor of them. If you actually care about the children and people of this country, [2:06:23] then let your votes and your actions speak for you and vote no against the $95 billion package you're [2:06:31] trying to move this week to send more of our children into war in an illegal war. Now, we don't have time [2:06:37] to close out this hearing with a proper closing, but I just want to say to my colleagues who came to share [2:06:44] their stories, their hopes, their dreams and the importance of these institutions and to all of the American [2:06:53] people out there, we will fight for the independence of the Smithsonian, and we will not go back, period. [2:07:01] Thank you. Co-chair, I recognize Ms. Boebert from Colorado. [2:07:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Hartig, you've said that history is a prime tool of social justice [2:07:17] and that the museum works to reframe the traditional celebratory narrative of U.S. history. Isn't that just [2:07:28] a polished way of saying that you intend to use a taxpayer-funded national museum to push a racial [2:07:37] narrative that divides Americans by their skin color and by guilt? Good morning, ma'am, and thank you for the [2:07:47] the questions. I have said in a number of my talks that I grow, I think, increasingly confident that [2:07:56] history can be a tool. So you're using taxpayer-funded dollars to divide our country by racism and guilt? [2:08:04] No, ma'am. I'm using the power of history. Madam Director, you changed the museum's mission away from [2:08:12] preserving and presenting American history toward empowering people to create a more just and [2:08:18] compassionate future. Who gave you the authority to turn the National Museum of American History [2:08:25] into a vehicle for progressive political activism? So the Smithsonian is a non-partisan institution. [2:08:33] 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 [2:08:38] compassionate future. We do so by preserving and sharing the stories of the past. And are you rewriting [2:08:45] that history? No, ma'am. No? So you are the one who is over all of this. You are the director. I am. And it seems [2:08:54] that you have the authority to decide what is just and what is compassionate. What about the tens of [2:09:02] millions of aborted babies? The babies that have been killed in America? Where's the justice and the [2:09:09] compassion for them? Ma'am, I believe in a just and compassionate future. Is it just and compassionate [2:09:21] to abort tens of millions of babies? I'm not here at this hearing to discuss that. Where's their history? [2:09:26] I am not here at this hearing to discuss that. Is that not a part of our American history? Did that not [2:09:32] happen? Or is it only what you care about? Is it only the issues that you care about? And you being [2:09:40] cushioned by white privilege and being propped up by your whiteness, as you claim? I'm paraphrasing. [2:09:48] Is that what you care about? Just racism and making people feel guilty? No, ma'am. I care about the full [2:09:55] richness of the American past. Since 1776, there's an estimated 3 billion people who have been here. [2:10:02] So it is an honor of my life. There's over 50 million babies that have been aborted. It's the [2:10:07] honor of my life to do my best to tell the American stories. Director, you've said that [2:10:10] loving America is very complicated. Is it complicated to love your country? I love my country [2:10:17] unconditionally, ma'am. And okay, so the 250th anniversary of the declaration, you said that that [2:10:25] should be problematized. Yes, I did. And when historians use that, it means to add new stories. [2:10:33] What about when you use it? Think about it different ways. Pardon me, ma'am? [2:10:35] What about when you use it, Director? When I use it, I mean to add new stories and think of new [2:10:41] objects to tell the American story and all its richness since 1776. But you're not going to include [2:10:45] the babies that were killed? We can't think of those stories, those new stories to share with American [2:10:51] people. Ma'am, we are going to use the 2 million objects in our collection to tell the American [2:10:57] story as fully as we can. There's over 50 million more you can add to that. I believe when the [2:11:02] Director of America's History Museum finds it complicated to love her country and wants to [2:11:11] problematize its founding. I believe that that's the definition of undoing our shared national story. [2:11:20] Would you agree? No, ma'am. Your museum has minimized or contextualized the founders primarily through [2:11:29] slavery and exclusion while elevating narratives of conquests, systematic injustice, and resistance. [2:11:36] Is there any version of the American founding you consider worthy of uncomplicated celebration? [2:11:45] Or is the entire project irredeemably tainted by your view? So the founding, excuse me, [2:11:57] the founding era of the nation occupies 25,000 square feet in our museum. So I'm incredibly proud [2:12:04] that we tell the stories of the founding. Is there any part of it that is uncomplicated or? [2:12:09] Oh, some of it's incredibly. Celebrate without complication? [2:12:12] Absolutely, ma'am. The time's up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:12:16] I ask for unanimous consent. I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record an opinion piece [2:12:21] authored by witness Professor Blight and published in the New York Times titled, [2:12:24] Trump is bending history to his will. He will fail. [2:12:28] So ordered. This time, I've been advised not to do this, but I'm going to do it because he's my friend. [2:12:39] Without objection, Mr. Jackson from Illinois is waived on the subcommittee for the purposes [2:12:44] of questioning the witnesses today's hearing. [2:12:48] Thank you, the honorable chairman, Mr. Tim Burchard, my friend. [2:12:52] Thank you, Ms. Stansberry and all the panelists that have come today. [2:12:55] I have enormous concern about what is happening at the museum structure, particularly under the Trump [2:13:02] administration. History is not something that we seek to change or bend. History was taking place [2:13:09] before we arrived. History is something that we should learn from. And to the degree that Mr. Trump, [2:13:15] specifically on the 4th of July of 2026, took further attacks at the National Museum of African [2:13:22] American History, I thought was very concerning. And he says that it is divisive, that we should show the [2:13:29] happier side of American enslavery, that we should show things that we have to unify us. I think what [2:13:36] unifies us is the truth. Mr. Blight, I would ask you, Dr. Blight, from your historical perspective, [2:13:43] what does it say about a society that cannot reconcile its history, its truth? And where are we now? [2:13:51] Well, for one thing, it says it's a mature society. History's never easily reconciled. One example, [2:13:59] members here today have said that America is unique, exceptional, and great because [2:14:05] we ended slavery. Actually, it is far closer to a historical truth that America is unique and [2:14:15] exceptional in that it took a massive all-out civil war to end slavery. We are the only country or empire [2:14:26] in the world that killed 700,000 of its own people in order to no longer have slavery. We have all become [2:14:36] abolitionists now. We all like to celebrate America ended slavery. But if we don't know the process by [2:14:43] which we got to that point, we know next to nothing. Well, let me ask you, there is now this attempt, [2:14:51] if you will, they're saying that our history is divisive. There were great people, Senator Charles [2:14:58] Sumner is a personal hero, Thaddeus Stevens, these were some of the people that were called the great [2:15:03] Reconstructionist, if you will, that brought about America. When you cancel out African Americans [2:15:10] in American history, you, in fact, don't tell the whole story. The purpose under Dr. Cardi Woodson, [2:15:16] who started off with African American History Week, and then Gerald Ford creating African History Month, [2:15:24] and even to the dedication of the museum that was allocated to land by George W. Bush. How do we [2:15:29] tell the whole story so we can show the progress that we've made and the resilience in America? [2:15:36] Well, Congressman, it's not simple. Last fall, with two colleagues at Yale, Beverly Gage and Joanne Freeman, [2:15:44] I taught a course called America at 250, A History. Now, no one teaches this way anymore. No one tries to do [2:15:52] the whole story in one course. We had so many people attending the course, we had to hold it [2:15:59] in the chapel of the university, and it was done under a rubric where Yale allows the community to come. We [2:16:06] had 400 local citizens attending every day. We had 400 undergraduates attending every day. We taught the whole [2:16:15] national story, the big picture, in one course. It was a little crazy, but we pulled it off, and we found [2:16:24] there was a deep yearning to know the whole story, but through all of the new histories as best we could that we've [2:16:35] come to know and understand. It goes without saying that if you erase your past, you'll pay for it. [2:16:45] 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 [2:16:50] the museum 10 years ago, and George W. Bush, I have to say thank you to him. He dedicated this land. [2:16:56] He wanted it prominent, and he also said in his remarks, and I would recommend other people read [2:17:00] his remarks. There were about five minutes, and this is just one brief section. He says, [2:17:05] this museum is an important addition to our country for many reasons. Here are three. First, [2:17:10] it shows our commitment to truth. A nation, a great nation does not hide its history. It faces its [2:17:16] flaws and corrects them. This museum tells the truth that a country founded on the promise of [2:17:20] liberty held millions in chains, and that the price of our union was America's original sin. [2:17:27] I would not thank Mr. Bush for, A, having made this a very prominent part of them all, [2:17:31] and for having brought truth to the American narrative. Dr. Blight, I'll leave you with any last words. [2:17:38] Well, I'd only add to that that no less than Lonnie Bunch himself thanks President George W. Bush [2:17:45] every chance he gets for the support for that museum. [2:17:49] Thank you, Dr. Blight. My dear friend, Dr. Tim Burchett, thank you so much for your [2:17:54] generosity in letting me share a few minutes. Don't gavel me out. I would appreciate it so much. [2:17:58] Thank you, Dr. Mr. Timothy Burch. [2:18:01] You're welcome, Chairman Jackson. [2:18:03] In closing, I want to thank our witnesses once again for their testimony. [2:18:08] With that, without objection, all members have five legislative days within which to submit [2:18:13] materials and additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded to the [2:18:16] witnesses. If there is no further business without objections, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [2:18:22] Afternoon and welcome. I'm Elizabeth Slattery, Vice President of Practice Groups at the Federalist Society. [2:23:54] In this series of America 250 webinars, experts analyze modern legal policy [2:23:59] debates through the lens of the founding generation. The founders gave us the tools to answer many [2:24:04] contemporary questions. Join us as we explore those answers. In this program, our panelists [2:24:10] will explore the founders' understanding of the right to a jury trial and how administrative [2:24:14] adjudication has steadily displaced the jury in recent decades. As always, our usual disclaimer applies. [2:24:21] The Federalist Society does not take policy positions and all views expressed in this session [2:24:26] belong to our speakers. Toward the end of the program, we'll take questions from the audience. [2:24:31] You can use the Q&A button at the bottom of your screen in Zoom to ask a question. Also note you [2:24:36] can view our speakers' full bios in the resources tab, as well as some of their writings, so be sure [2:24:42] to check those out. Now I'm pleased to introduce today's moderator. The Honorable Jennifer Walker [2:24:48] Elrod is the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Prior to her [2:24:54] confirmation in 2007, she served as a District Court Judge in Harris County, Texas, where she presided over [2:25:00] more than 200 jury and non-jury trials. Before her judicial service, Chief Judge Elrod worked in private [2:25:06] practice focusing on civil litigation, antitrust, and employment matters. Chief Judge Elrod has been [2:25:13] repeatedly recognized for her work as a jurist, her pro bono work, and her contributions to the legal [2:25:18] community. She's written several articles relevant to today's discussion, including Is the Jury Still Out? A Case for the [2:25:25] Continued Viability of the American Jury, and Whither the Jury? The Diminishing Role of the Jury Trial in [2:25:31] our legal system. And one note of point of personal privilege, Chief Judge Elrod might be one of the [2:25:38] most musical judges in our federal system. If you aren't familiar with her rendition of Hamilton's [2:25:44] You'll Be Back from 2020, please check it out. With that, Chief Judge, the floor is yours. [2:25:49] Chief Judge Elrod Thank you so much, Elizabeth. I am delighted to be a part of this panel discussion [2:25:57] today about something near and dear to my heart, the American jury system. I want to especially [2:26:05] appreciate today you and in your service as the Vice President of Practice Groups at the Federalist Society [2:26:14] and the Administrative Law and Regulation Practice Group itself, which is hosting this event today, [2:26:21] and also a special thank you to the American History and Tradition Project. I am crazy about [2:26:30] this program because I am so excited about the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the [2:26:37] Declaration. And this did not just end on July 4th. We're continuing all year to celebrate our [2:26:43] semi-quincentennial. It's important that we remember that one of the rights that the colonists complained [2:26:52] about being deprived of as one of their grievances was, of course, the right to jury trial. Today, [2:27:00] we will be discussing trial by jury at the founding, and we have some experts here to help us do that. [2:27:07] And we'll also be discussing Supreme Court's recent look at administrative agencies and the contrast with [2:27:16] the Seventh Amendment jury trial. We'll discuss, and I'm sure at least one of our panelists will want to [2:27:23] talk about how administrative adjudication usurps the unimportant right. Another panelist may say, no, it's [2:27:30] instead a helpful tool in a busy and complicated world and very necessary. Without further ado, let me introduce [2:27:39] you to our scholars and practitioners who are here with us today. First, we have Professor Renee Lerner. [2:27:48] She is truly an expert on the founding generation and before. Her book, The Jury, a very short introduction [2:27:58] published by Oxford University Press in 2023, discusses the history and practice of the jury around the globe. [2:28:07] This book was the subject of a major symposium of the George Washington Law Review in October of 2024. [2:28:14] She is also the co-author of the book, History of the Common Law, The Development of Anglo-American [2:28:20] Legal Institutions. She received her A.B. summa cum laude in history from Princeton University. [2:28:29] She was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, where she studied English legal history. And at Yale, she was the [2:28:34] articles editor of the Yale Law Journal. She also served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, [2:28:41] which you'll see as a thread, a common thread of our speakers here today. And to Judge Stephen F. [2:28:48] Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Importantly for our purposes today, she advises judges, lawyers, [2:28:56] and government officials from the United States and countries in Europe, Latin America, and Asia, [2:29:01] about the differences between adversarial and non-adversarial legal systems. And she has personal [2:29:08] experience with this as well. She has served as a witness in a murder case in Paris, France, [2:29:15] before a mixed panel of professional judges and lay jurors. We look forward to hearing about this [2:29:22] experience as it's certainly very unique. And we look forward to hearing about her expertise [2:29:27] about the American jury and our factors. Next, we have Professor Christopher Walker. He is a Professor [2:29:35] of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Programming in the Michigan Law Faculty. Prior to joining Michigan [2:29:44] Law, he's taught for a decade at the Ohio State University School of Law. He also clerked for Justice [2:29:51] Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Alex Kaczynski on the United States Court of Appeals for [2:29:57] the Ninth Circuit. For several years, he worked at a litigation boutique and then served in the U.S. [2:30:03] Department of Justice, also served in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and also has helped with judicial [2:30:11] advisory commissions. His scholarship spans a wide variety of issues related to administrative law. [2:30:19] It has been relied upon and cited by the Supreme Court, as well as many other jurists around the [2:30:26] country. His research on agency adjudication has resulted in two reports for the Administrative [2:30:32] Conference of the United States, as well. He has written extensively also on Presidential Power and the [2:30:40] Unitary Executive Doctrine, Chevron, Loper Bright, you name it. He's a go-to scholar on administrative law, [2:30:49] and I think he will lend a unique perspective because he's actually studied what people who worked in [2:30:56] administrative agencies do, and really interviewed a number of them himself. And it's so fascinating, [2:31:03] his research. Thank you, Professor Walker. Next, we have Rob Johnson. Rob Johnson is a senior attorney [2:31:11] for the Institute for Justice. The Institute for Justice is where he litigates to protect private [2:31:17] property, free speech, and other individual rights. His goal is to ensure that government follows fair [2:31:25] procedures and respects individual liberties. He has successfully challenged a law enforcement program [2:31:31] that subjected individuals to relentless harassment because a computer algorithm predicted they were [2:31:36] likely to commit future crimes. He has filed class action lawsuits. He has also litigated to uphold the [2:31:44] right to financial privacy. He is currently litigating in many issues related to the topic today [2:31:53] and the right to a jury trial. He has been published numerous times in the Wall Street Journal, the [2:31:59] Washington Post, Politico, and Reason. He has testified before Congress repeatedly. He has served as a [2:32:08] Fellow for Freedom in the Constitution and has written and spoken extensively about the vital role the United [2:32:15] States Constitution plays in protecting our most precious freedoms. He attended Harvard Law School, [2:32:21] Columbia University, and he also clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy and Judge Alex Kosinski. We are so [2:32:30] delighted to have the practitioner's viewpoint, a very passionate practitioner, in our midst today as we [2:32:36] discuss these issues. So I think our first, we're going to turn the mic over to Professor Lerner, who's going [2:32:44] to set the table for us about what did the founders think and believe and do regarding the jury, [2:32:51] and why did they care? [2:32:53] Well, thank you, Chief Judge Elrod. That was a very generous introduction. And I'd like to highlight [2:33:00] your expertise, as Elizabeth Slattery did. And thank you to Elizabeth for putting together this panel. [2:33:08] But, Chief Judge Elrod, you are very familiar with these issues, as you are the author of the Fifth [2:33:16] Circuit's Opinion in Jarkisi v. SEC, which later was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. So many thanks [2:33:23] for participating in this panel. As Chief Judge Elrod mentioned, I'm a legal historian, and the expertise [2:33:33] of legal historians has been crucial to interpretations of the Seventh Amendment's right to civil jury trial. [2:33:40] A majority of justices now on the U.S. Supreme Court, and of course many other federal judges as well, [2:33:48] have embraced the methodology of originalism. And in addition to that, the Seventh Amendment's text [2:33:56] itself creates a historical baseline. It says that the right to trial by jury shall be preserved. [2:34:03] And Joseph Stolteck, and Joseph Stolteck, and Joseph Stolteck, which was simply the right to trial by Jesus Christ.