The Smithsonian Institution has emerged as a focal point in the Trump administration’s ongoing cultural conflicts, following the release of a scathing 162-page report by the White House in July. The document alleges that the museum complex has succumbed to “ideological capture,” shifting its mission from straightforward historical education to what it describes as extreme political activism aimed at transforming the nation.
Central to these criticisms was a 2021 exhibit at the National Museum of American History titled “The Electric Dr. Franklin.” The installation highlighted Benjamin Franklin’s significant contributions to electrical science while also addressing his history as a slave owner prior to his abolitionist turn. The exhibit explicitly stated that Franklin’s scientific achievements were, in part, made possible by slavery.
Of particular note was the museum’s speculation that enslaved individuals may have been used as subjects in Franklin’s electrical experiments. Display text noted that while Franklin documented administering shocks to family and friends, he rarely identified them by name. The exhibit suggested that indentured servants and enslaved people in his household “could also have been used, although we may never know for certain.” This conjecture drew sharp criticism from the White House report, which singled out the display as evidence of the museum’s departure from objective scholarship.
The exhibit, which ran from November 2021 until its closure in 2025, remains accessible online. Its inclusion in the administration’s critique underscores the growing tension between historical institutions and political leadership over how American history is interpreted and presented to the public.
I find it ironic the White House calls this ‘activism’ while ignoring how slavery shaped America’s economic foundation. History should not be sanitized.
It is alarming that conjecture about Franklin’s experiments is treated as fact by historians. Museums must stick to evidence, not political speculation.