The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History has come under sharp criticism from conservative Black voices who say the institution has shifted from celebrating American opportunity to promoting ideological narratives that fracture national unity; this piece lays out those objections, highlights testimony and remarks from leaders like Bishop Earl Walker Jackson and John Allante McAuley, and traces how a recent White House report and congressional hearings intensified scrutiny of the museum’s direction.

Conservative Blacks Call Out the Smithsonian’s Terrible Take on Black American History

“This is a wonderful country; it’s the greatest nation on earth.” Bishop Earl Walker Jackson, who traces his family back to enslaved ancestors, delivered that line and used it to push back against what he calls indoctrination at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. He says too many exhibits now ask visitors to see the country only in terms of race, class, and grievance instead of the opportunities America has offered generations. For him and others, that framing robs the nation’s story of its hopeful and aspirational elements.

Conservative critics argue that the museum director, Dr. Anthea Hartig, has steered exhibits toward activism rather than education, and they point to a White House report that accused the institution of “ideological capture.” That report, assembled by the Domestic Policy Council, contends the museum views key moments through lenses of race, gender, immigration, economic inequality, and sexuality. On Capitol Hill, those concerns triggered hearings focused on whether the museum is reshaping the past to prioritize contemporary agendas.

At a hearing, critics said the museum downplays the Founding Fathers and reshapes slavery and Black history to emphasize systemic injustice while promoting social justice remedies. Museum defenders argue museums should reckon honestly with painful history, but conservative visitors and commentators say the approach should not turn public institutions into platforms for present-day ideology. The disagreement is about balance: how to tell a full story without erasing the elements that gave Americans cause for pride and progress.

Museum Director Hartig’s own remarks to students in 2025 became flashpoints. Her comments about the United States’ “long and violent racial history” and the need for “restorative justice” were quoted in the report and at hearings. Those words were presented exactly as spoken: “[The] ‘United States’ long and violent racial history continues to be present in our reckoning, if you will’ and said that ‘redress in the form of reparation, of course, goes beyond acknowledgement of wrongdoing; it should leverage responsibility, it should think about the act of correction, as we pursue restorative justice and, for us [on the call], restorative justice through history.'” For opponents, references to restorative justice inside a national museum signal an advocacy posture that makes many visitors uncomfortable.

Critics point to examples they see as revisionist, from elevated profiles for radical activists to claims that classic cultural artifacts reflect racist tropes, and they argue these choices distort context. They note that leadership compensation and institutional reach amplify whatever narrative the museum advances, creating a global stage for a particular perspective. That dynamic, they say, matters because millions of tourists and students form impressions about the nation from exhibits that should aim for steady, factual presentation rather than contemporary political critique.

On the ground, conservative Black activists have visited exhibits to test the claims of bias and to record their observations. John Allante McAuley, who runs a local grassroots operation in Philadelphia, recorded remarks after touring the President’s House Slave Exhibit and pushed back against the accusation that the Trump administration is whitewashing slavery. In his words: “Once again, you have Black liberals doing the bidding of white liberals here, and they want to keep you angry.” He argued the exhibit conversation is more nuanced than media coverage suggests and criticized those who seek to keep focus on anger instead of uplift.

McAuley continued to emphasize agency and the need for accountability in teaching, saying, “They want to keep us angry, they want to keep us hating America. Black people act like America is not for them, when it was business decisions why things happened hundreds of years ago.” He added, “None of what happened in the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, have nothing to do with where Black people are today,” and warned against weaponizing history to prevent forward movement. For McAuley and like-minded conservatives, historical pain should inform better policy and stronger families rather than foster permanent grievance.

Those pushing back at the Smithsonian want a reorientation toward factual, balanced curation that celebrates the nation’s achievements while honestly acknowledging its failures. They view the White House report and congressional oversight as corrective steps to ensure public museums serve the public interest and not a single ideological line. The debate is now political, institutional, and cultural, and it touches on how Americans of all backgrounds will understand their shared past.

Not everyone agrees with the conservative critique, and battles over museum narratives are likely to continue as administrations change and political pressure mounts. But the intervention by conservative Black leaders—people who proudly claim their American identity and insist on complexity rather than grievance—has added a potent voice to the national conversation about how to remember and teach the past. As these discussions play out, visitors to national institutions will be watching how balance, context, and perspective are handled in exhibits that define the American story.

— Fox News (@FoxNews)

“This is a wonderful country; it’s the greatest nation on earth.”

Bishop Earl Walker Jackson, a descendant of slaves, is blasting what he calls anti-American “indoctrination” at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History.

Jackson, whose great-grandparents were enslaved, says Americans are being taught to view the country through race, ethnicity, and class instead of recognizing the opportunities it provides.

“If you were born an American, you hit the proverbial lottery because you have more opportunity and hope than any people living anywhere else on the planet.”

His criticism comes after a White House report accused the museum of “ideological capture,” fueling new scrutiny on Capitol Hill over how the Smithsonian presents American history.

WATCH:

“I came down to the President’s House exhibit to see what the controversy is about regarding the language used to describe the enslaved people who worked for George Washington. I talk about how the conversation is more nuanced than what the media reports, and I discuss the importance of understanding the full history, including the role of Africans in the slave trade. I also share the story of Anthony Johnson, a Black man who owned indentured servants and was involved in the John Casor case, which I argue laid the foundation for chattel slavery. I express frustration with what I see as a culture of degeneracy in the Black community today and argue that historical slavery is not an excuse for current issues.”

https://x.com/AllanteMcAuley/status/2084742533238734923