WASHINGTON — Anthea M. Hartig, director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, faced a second consecutive day of congressional questioning Wednesday as House Republicans accused the museum of replacing a unifying account of the United States with politically driven interpretations of race, gender, immigration and national identity. Hartig rejected that characterization, telling the House Administration Committee that the museum follows standards of scholarship, accuracy, independence and nonpartisanship and “does not take sides in America’s political debates.”

The July 22 hearing, titled “Oversight of the Smithsonian: Radical Revisionism at the National Museum of American History,” came one day after Hartig appeared before a House Oversight subcommittee examining similar claims. The back-to-back sessions placed the historian, who has led the museum since 2019, at the center of a widening dispute over who should shape the stories presented by one of the country’s most prominent publicly funded cultural institutions.

House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., said taxpayers should not be financing work he viewed as divisive. Republican members repeatedly drew from “Saving America’s Story,” a July 4 report issued by the White House Domestic Policy Council. The report argues that the museum has minimized the nation’s founders and founding documents, placed disproportionate emphasis on oppression and social conflict, and adopted language that turns historical interpretation into political advocacy.

Hartig disputed the report’s overall portrayal of the museum. In testimony delivered across the two hearings, she said the institution was continuing to check the report’s assertions and maintained that it did not fairly describe the full scope of the museum’s collections, exhibitions and public programs. She framed the museum’s approach as an effort to broaden historical evidence rather than erase familiar figures or events. Adding objects and voices omitted from older narratives, she argued, allows more visitors to recognize themselves in the national story.

The dispute has become especially charged during the United States’ 250th anniversary year. The White House contends that the museum has failed to present the country’s founding in a sufficiently prominent, celebratory and coherent way. Hartig and the museum point to “In Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness,” a semiquincentennial presentation that opened in May and brings together 250 objects across the building. The display includes the desk Thomas Jefferson used while drafting the Declaration of Independence, a Revolutionary War-era gunboat and the Star-Spangled Banner.

Republicans acknowledged that major founding-era artifacts are on view but questioned how easily visitors can find and understand them. Their criticism extended beyond placement and navigation to the museum’s treatment of contemporary social issues. Lawmakers revisited material from past or temporary exhibitions involving gender identity, sexuality and immigration, arguing that some displays reflected activism rather than neutral interpretation. At Wednesday’s hearing, Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., used a poster highlighting museum material she considered sexually explicit, including content involving the performer RuPaul.

Democrats argued that the hearings reflected an effort by elected officials and the White House to control professional decisions normally made by historians, curators and museum leaders. Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the committee’s ranking Democrat, warned against government-directed historical narratives and cited examples of authoritarian governments removing inconvenient events or people from the public record. Committee Democrats also issued a rebuttal to the White House report, defending the Smithsonian’s scholarly independence and challenging the administration’s reading of the museum’s work.

The hearing also exposed disagreement among the invited experts. Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, called for new Smithsonian leadership and urged Congress to reconsider authorization for the planned National Museum of the American Latino. Historian David Blight of Yale University appeared as a counterweight to that argument, defending the role of historians in presenting conflict, contradiction and change rather than reducing the past to a single patriotic storyline. Jeffrey Anderson, president of the American Main Street Initiative, was also listed as a witness.

The immediate controversy centers on the National Museum of American History, but the stakes extend across the Smithsonian Institution, which includes museums, galleries, research operations and the National Zoo. President Donald Trump’s administration has sought to remove diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives from federal institutions and has pressed cultural organizations to present American history in terms it describes as inspiring and unifying. The Smithsonian, while receiving substantial federal support and operating under congressional oversight, has emphasized that its curatorial and personnel decisions are not directly controlled by the president.

That institutional structure makes Congress a critical arena. The House Administration Committee has jurisdiction over Smithsonian oversight, and Wednesday’s session was its first such hearing since Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch appeared before the panel in 2023. Steil said he sees value in much of the Smithsonian’s work but believes stronger oversight is needed. The previous day’s hearing was organized separately by the House Oversight Committee’s government-efficiency subcommittee, according to Roll Call.

Hartig’s position has nevertheless come under unusual public pressure. On Tuesday, Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., asked why she should remain in her job. Hartig answered that leading the museum was “the honor of my career.” Her response underscored the personal stakes of a dispute that already contributed to leadership turmoil elsewhere in the Smithsonian system after National Portrait Gallery director Kim Sajet stepped down amid White House pressure.

No immediate legislative action or leadership change was announced at Wednesday’s hearing. The confrontation instead sharpened the central question facing the Smithsonian: whether a national museum can examine injustice, contested identity and historical change while also providing the shared civic narrative demanded by its political overseers. With the semiquincentennial underway and Congress signaling continued scrutiny, that question is likely to influence exhibition planning, funding debates and the autonomy of cultural institutions well beyond the National Mall.