Dr. Jody Edward Ginn, a historian and museum professional, says the Smithsonian has wandered far from its old mission of educating Americans and has marched straight into the familiar swamp of political activism, as reported by Fox News.
After visiting the National Museum of American History for the first time in more than a decade, Ginn told Fox News Digital that the institution no longer feels like the place he remembered from 2012.
“It’s a completely different place than when I was there in 2012,” Ginn said, describing a museum that he believes now pushes visitors toward a preferred political conclusion rather than allowing history to speak for itself.
“Its mission is clearly exactly what they changed it to be. It is a museum for activism. They use history, but that’s kind of the problem. You know, scholars of history, and I don’t consider these folks scholars anymore. They’re activists.”
Ginn said he made the trip from Texas after reading a Domestic Policy Council report from the Trump administration that accused the Smithsonian and the National Museum of American History of failing to present the American story “in a way that is inspiring, unifying, and worthy of our great republic.”
That criticism has been building for some time among conservatives, who have watched major cultural institutions turn from shared civic education into sermon halls for the activist left, usually with taxpayers still expected to foot the bill.
“From the moment I walked in, it’s a very different experience,” Ginn said. “Now, I wasn’t totally shocked by this because I’ve been watching this evolution in my field for over a decade.”
As Ginn moved through the exhibits, he said the museum appeared less interested in giving Americans context and more interested in nudging them toward activism. In other words, visitors are not simply learning history; they are being recruited into a worldview.
He said the institution now seeks to “specifically direct” visitors “to action” instead of giving them the information needed to “make their own decisions.” That is a serious charge for a museum carrying the Smithsonian name.
“It became this goal, their own stated goal, to turn museums from institutions of education, of public education, into institutions to encourage activism, which could also be said to indoctrinate.”
Ginn said some exhibits contained “factually incorrect information,” but he argued the bigger problem is the selective storytelling. A museum does not have to lie outright if it can simply leave out everything inconvenient.
“The biggest problem is in what they leave out,” he said.
He also criticized what he described as “graphic” and sexually explicit content in exhibits open to children and families. For parents who thought a national history museum might be a safe place for a family visit, that is quite the modern surprise package.
“These are geared towards all ages,” Ginn said.
“Why would you do that? All of that’s out of sync with what museums were just a few years ago.”
Concerns about the museum were also raised during a House hearing last month, where lawmakers questioned Smithsonian National Museum of American History Director Anthea Hartig about controversial exhibits and the institution’s broader direction.
Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee pressed Hartig about an exhibit titled “Illegal to Be You: Gay History Beyond Stonewall,” saying, “You have pictures of bondage, you have some overtly sexual things up there, you have transgender folks.”
Lawmakers also examined the 2017 MASS Action Toolkit, a guide for museum professionals that referenced Ferguson, Missouri, Black Lives Matter protests, and described “objectivity” as a feature of “white supremacy culture.”
That particular idea has become a favorite in elite activist circles, where even basic standards of fairness and evidence can apparently be rebranded as oppression when they interfere with the preferred narrative.
Reflecting on Hartig’s testimony, Ginn said it was “very disappointing” and did not amount to “a scholarly presentation whatsoever.”
“If that’s the kind of museum you’ve been approved to run, then just own it,” Ginn said.
“Don’t say you’re being unbiased when it’s really evident.”
Ginn also objected to Hartig’s claim that the museum has not chosen sides. He argued that the revised mission statement altered the purpose of the institution in a meaningful and revealing way.
During a 2024 presentation to undergraduate and graduate history students, Hartig said the museum removed the mention of “American history” from its mission statement because it was “hard to get out of the ‘America First’ mentality.”
For Ginn, that comment tells Americans plenty about the mindset guiding the museum. A National Museum of American History that seems uncomfortable with American history is not exactly a small management issue.
“It is my opinion as a public historian that the mission we’ve always had is to educate the public and provide scholarly information,” he said. “To me, that’s what the National Museum of American History should be.”
Ginn said he is “not hopeful” the institution can change without a major effort to replace current staff with people committed to scholarship rather than politics.
“These people have bought into it, hook, line and sinker,” he said.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Smithsonian for comment. For now, the debate continues over whether one of America’s most prominent museum systems will return to teaching history or keep dressing up activism as education.
