Skip to main content

Smithsonian official set to testify before Congress amid sharp White House criticism of museum

The Smithsonian American History Museum on July 07, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Finn Gomez/Getty Images)

(WASHINGTON) — The director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History (MNAH) is scheduled to testify before two congressional House committees this week amid sharp criticism from the White House over the contents of the Washington, D.C. museum.

Anthea Hartig is set to face grilling by lawmakers on Tuesday morning in a House Subcommittee on Delivering Government Efficiency hearing titled “Rewriting American History: Examining the Smithsonian’s Efforts to Reshape the Past,” according to a committee press release.

She is also expected to testify in a related hearing on Wednesday before the Committee on House Administration, a committee spokesperson confirmed to ABC News. ABC News has reached out to the Smithsonian for confirmation.

Hartig was named in a scathing White House Domestic Policy Council report released on July 4, accusing the MNAH and its leadership of engaging in “extreme political activism” and presenting “a radical view of American history.”

Asked about the report, a spokesperson for the Smithsonian told ABC News on July 5 that the institution remains committed to impartial learning.

“For more than 180 years, the Smithsonian has served the American public with nonpartisan and independent scholarship, and we remain committed to doing so,” the spokesperson said.

Hartig’s testimony this week would mark the first time that a top leader at the Smithsonian gets grilled publicly by Congress after President Donald Trump targeted the institution in his March 27, 2025 executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”

The executive order directed Vice President J.D. Vance, in consultation with the president’s advisers on domestic policy, “to remove improper ideology” from Smithsonian institutions, arguing that materials that cast America in a “negative light” have no place in federal cultural institutions.

The White House last year launched an investigation into the Smithsonian, which oversees 21 museums, galleries and the national zoo, and released the July 4 report targeting the American history museum as part of this probe.

The report accuses the museum of “anti-White activism,” “illegal alien activism,” and “transgender activism.” It also includes many photos of materials the White House has identified as problematic.

Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch, who has not addressed the report publicly, disputed its findings in an internal letter to staff that was obtained by ABC News.

Bunch wrote that Smithsonian leadership is “carefully” reviewing the report’s findings, but said that the report’s assessment is “not a fair characterization.

“While there will always be room for improvement, this report is not a fair characterization of the work and totality of the National Museum of American History,” Bunch said in the letter. “At the Smithsonian, our work is driven by scholarship, accuracy, and an uncompromising commitment to tell the fullness of America’s story.”

“As public servants and the keepers of this institution, we are charged with helping a nation find understanding, hope, and clarity and as part of that duty, we are dedicated to excellence, reflection, and growth,” Bunch added.

The report was published by the White House Domestic Policy Council. Vince Haley, the group’s director, said in a statement to ABC News that “No American wants the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History to be a system of ideological activism.”

“Unfortunately, the report demonstrates that is exactly what the Smithsonian’s flagship museum has become,” he said. “It is our hope and expectation that the Smithsonian will eventually rise once again to that noble obligation — to tell America’s story for our children, the world, and future generations of Americans,” he added.

ABC News’ Mariam Khan contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Gianni Infantino is in a mire of his own making. With the threat of a European boycott, can he ride out the storm?

By CNN
(CNN) — Gianni Infantino lives to fight another day – for now.Despite the continued, unprecedented backlash within and outside of FIFA to his ill-conceived and ultimately ill-fated FFE plan, the Swiss – at least on the surface – remains defiant.In any other walk of life, he’d have packed his bags. Soccer governance, though, operates in an alternative reality.Not willing to go of his accord, he clings on to power, emboldened to muddle through the biggest, self-made storm that has engulfed him and his organization in his 10-year tenure.An apologetic statement this week and commitment to not letting history repeat itself has, though, done little to placate the intensifying scrutiny of his leadership.With European soccer’s governing body, UEFA, doubling down on its threat of a boycott of FIFA competitions and battle lines being drawn up across the global footballing landscape, the question still looms: Is Infantino’s latest gambit a stay of execution, an attempted fightback or the start of a prolonged war of attrition?Fragmented landscapePrior to this summer’s World Cup, it was reported that more than 200 of the 211 national associations that make up FIFA had pledged their support to Infantino for his reelection next year.And up until this point the 56-year-old has appeared Teflon.Concerns surrounding his close ties with US President Donald Trump, outrage at exorbitant ticket prices and immigration policies at the World Cup through to still unanswered questions around the overturning of Folarin Balogun’s ban during the tournament all have been largely brushed under the carpet.The fight over the plan to sell off parts of the World Cup and other signature FIFA events to private businesses has tested that bulletproof presidency. And while there’s since been an unrelenting, concerted effort by UEFA to oust Infantino, from a loss of confidence in his leadership to the threat of legal action against him and his associates, there’s not been the united front that had been anticipated when it comes to change.UEFA commands a great deal of power and clout on and off the pitch, but it’s struggling to shake off the perception of this being another attempted European coup.Put simply, it cannot fight this battle alone.Not only does it need global support to maintain its momentum, it too needs to offer a genuine alternative to the status quo.Herein lies the problem.Power strongholdsOutside of Europe, so far only Jordan – one of a handful of countries not to have signed a letter of support for Infantino’s reelection prior to this crisis – has publicly called for Infantino’s resignation.North and Central America and Caribbean governing body CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) have both criticized the FIFA president and rejected the plan.Yet several countries within both confederations have already publicly pledged their loyalty to Infantino, while some are in no rush to commit either way.In a game of fine margins, which way those nations swing could prove crucial.And it’s not just the splitting of votes within confederations where Infantino is pinning his hopes of preserving his position.Like that of his predecessors, João Havelange and Sepp Blatter, Infantino is seeking to rally his core supporters in his traditional power base of Africa.Less wealthy associations within and outside the confederation have relied heavily on FIFA funds via Infantino’s FIFA Forward program, the precursor to FFE, which was introduced by him in 2016.South America’s CONMEBOL has already said it won’t upset the apple cart as it continues its push for a 64-team World Cup in 2030.Meanwhile, the executive committee of the smallest and least wealthy regional confederation, Oceania (OFC), will meet Wednesday to discuss its approach.Numbers gameAlthough severely weakened, Infantino still has his allies and, as it stands, the belief that he has the requisite votes needed to win March’s presidential election.And, at least for now, despite the threat of revolt, internal pressure within FIFA appears to have abated.While some senior figures have spoken out, others have fallen in line.To date, Carlos Cordeiro, formerly Infantino’s senior advisor, is the only high-profile official to have quit.The ball, therefore, is in UEFA’s court as to what to do next.It has several options at its disposal but which one it takes could prove crucial in determining the trajectory of how this saga unfolds.The problem, though, is none of the routes is easily achievable.Short term it could look to initiate an Extraordinary Congress and by default a no-confidence vote in Infantino.UEFA has the numbers to trigger such an action but there’s no guarantee of success.A forcing of an emergency meeting of the FIFA Council is also an avenue but again getting the necessary support may prove too difficult.All indicators, therefore, point toward a challenger being put up to face Infantino in March’s election – the first time an election would be contested since Infantino himself succeeded the discredited Sepp Blatter in 2016.CONCACAF president Victor Montagliani is widely viewed as the most likely rival if enough votes can be generated.The Canadian, though, is yet to publicly comment on the privatization plan fallout or provide an alternative vision to that presented by Infantino.Candidates have until November 18 to put their names forward for the contest.Nuclear optionThis, though, buys Infantino time to ride out the storm, regroup and rebuild.He could offer a route for reform, open up FIFA’s cash reserves or dangle the carrot of new funding. All options are on the table.The question that could cut through all of this is whether UEFA follows through with its threat of a boycott and non-cooperation, both of which could make FIFA ungovernable for Infantino.Not satisfied by Infantino’s walkback, it is a lever that Europe can pull – albeit a dangerous one at the same time.History hasn’t always looked kindly on such a move.A first major test of UEFA’s will is whether its national teams participate in next month’s U-20 Women’s World Cup in Poland.Six nations, including the host, are set to compete although UEFA is yet to publicly confirm how it intends to navigate this.CNN has approached FIFA and Poland’s FA for comment.Time is of the essence and the hopes and dreams of players in the balance.Beyond the pitch, tetchiness from FIFA’s lucrative sponsors amid the constant negative publicity could also prove telling.For now, though, soccer’s civil war appears to be heading toward an entrenched standoff of ideas and values.And, as ever, it rests on the game’s true custodians – the fans and players – to keep the very soul of the game alive and intact.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story

Related Stories

Latest News
El plan de las fuerzas de EE.UU. para desplegar submarinos con misiles guiados y por qué esto es importante para China
57 minutes ago

El plan de las fuerzas de EE.UU. para desplegar submarinos con misiles guiados y por qué esto es importante para China

Child among three people killed in Russian attacks on Ukraine

The US Navy’s plan for almost 20 guided-missile subs and why that will matter around China

La IA crea 16 virus desde cero, lo que combatiría la resistencia a antibióticos, pero alerta sobre su posible uso indebido

El desplante de Trump ante las preocupaciones del Partido Republicano por las elecciones intermedias