The Smithsonian Institution is facing a new front in the culture wars, and this time the target is not a statue or a street name. It is an exhibit about Benjamin Franklin, the founding father whose electrical experiments helped shape modern science. The White House has turned its attention to the National Museum of American History, arguing that the institution has moved from straightforward education to activist politics. The question now is whether the museum can weather this attack while staying true to its mission.
In November 2021, the Smithsonian opened an exhibit called “The Electric Dr. Franklin.” The display covered Franklin’s pioneering work in electrical science, but it also touched on a darker aspect of his life: he enslaved people in his household before becoming an abolitionist. The exhibit stated plainly that “Benjamin Franklin’s remarkable scientific accomplishments were, in part, enabled by slavery,” and it went further, speculating that Franklin may have used enslaved people in his electrical research. The exhibit noted that Franklin wrote about experiments in which he took shocks and used family and friends, “although he seldom identified who in particular assisted him.” It also suggested that “Indentured servants and enslaved people in his household could also have been used, although we may never know for certain.”
The exhibit closed in 2025 but remains viewable online. That is where the trouble began.
Franklin’s Legacy on Display
Franklin’s contributions to electrical science are well documented. He was also a businessman, a statesman and a writer. But the exhibit chose to include the part of his life that is often overlooked: his ownership of enslaved people.
The exhibit did not hide this fact. It acknowledged it directly, and it connected it to his scientific work. The exhibit’s acknowledgment of slavery as an enabler of Franklin’s accomplishments is a departure from the sanitized versions of history that have dominated public displays for generations. Instead of presenting Franklin as a pure genius, the exhibit presented him as a complex figure whose work was shaped by the society around him.
Ideological Capture at the White House
A 162-page White House report released in July criticized the exhibit, arguing that the museum suffered “ideological capture.” The report argued that the museum moved its mission “away from straightforward historical education and scholarship toward an extreme political activism that seeks to transform our country.” The language is blunt, and it treats a historical interpretation as a political statement.
The Smithsonian draws some 15 million visitors each year to its 21 museums. For decades, the institution has largely stayed above the political fray. An exception came in 1995, when the National Air and Space Museum faced an uproar over its planned exhibit of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Even then, the institution generally maintained bipartisan support as guardian of America’s history, ingenuity and natural heritage.
But the Franklin exhibit has become a flashpoint. The White House report is not the first to raise questions about how history is presented.
What the Exhibit Actually Said
The exhibit was careful in its wording. It acknowledged Franklin’s enslavement and the possibility that enslaved people contributed to his research, but it stopped short of asserting that they did. The phrase “we may never know for certain” is a concession, not a declaration. The exhibit presented a hypothesis, not a verdict.
That distinction matters. The report, by contrast, reads the exhibit as a political statement. It argues that the museum has abandoned its educational role in favor of activism. The report’s framing is that the museum’s interpretation of history is no longer neutral.
The Numbers Behind the Institution
The Smithsonian’s scale is hard to miss. Fifteen million visitors across 21 museums is a vast audience.
| Institution | Role | Visitor Count |
|---|---|---|
| Smithsonian | 21 museums, including the National Museum of American History | ~15 million per year |
| National Air and Space Museum | Home of the Enola Gay exhibit | Part of the Smithsonian’s 21 museums |
The comparison shows that the Smithsonian has weathered controversy before. The Enola Gay uproar did not break the institution.
The Political Context of the Attack
The culture wars have moved from statues to institutions. The Smithsonian is now caught in the crossfire. The White House report is part of a broader pattern of attacks on cultural institutions, museums and universities that have been labeled as ideologically aligned with the left.
The Franklin exhibit was not designed to provoke. It was an attempt to present a fuller picture of a historical figure, warts and all. The report, however, sees it as part of a larger trend.
What Happens Next
The exhibit remains online. Visitors can still see it and judge for themselves. The Smithsonian has not responded publicly to the report, but the institution has a long history of defending its independence. It is likely to resist being cast as an ideological pawn.
The White House report is a warning shot. It signals that the administration will continue to scrutinize cultural institutions for signs of political alignment. The Smithsonian, with its massive audience and its role as keeper of national heritage, is a logical target.
The Paper’s View on the Conflict
The report argues that the museum moved from straightforward education to activist politics. That is the stated position. But the exhibit itself was a measured historical speculation, not a statement of political transformation. The distinction is important. A museum presenting a hypothesis about Franklin’s enslaved workers is not the same as a museum that has transformed its mission into activism.
The Franklin exhibit was a single display about a single man. The report has turned it into a proxy battle over the meaning of American history. That is the problem with the current approach to cultural institutions. A single exhibit becomes a symbol, and the symbol becomes the fight.
The Smithsonian has faced controversy before and survived. The Franklin exhibit is unlikely to be its last brush with politics. The institution has defended its independence in the past, and it will likely do so again.
The Key Facts
- Exhibit: “The Electric Dr. Franklin” at the National Museum of American History
- Open: November 2021
- Closed: 2025
- Online: Still viewable
- Visitor count: ~15 million per year
- White House report: 162 pages, released July
- Previous controversy: National Air and Space Museum’s Enola Gay exhibit, 1995
The Franklin exhibit was a single display about a single man. The report has turned it into a proxy battle over the meaning of American history. That is the problem with the current approach to cultural institutions. A single exhibit becomes a symbol, and the symbol becomes the fight.
The Smithsonian has faced controversy before and survived. The Franklin exhibit is unlikely to be its last brush with politics. The institution has defended its independence in the past, and it will likely do so again.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs the Smithsonian’s independence to present exhibits about American history and is against any White House effort to control or dictate how the museum frames its displays. The Franklin exhibit was a measured historical speculation, not a statement of political transformation, and the White House report’s accusation of “ideological capture” misreads a hypothesis as a verdict. The Smithsonian has weathered controversy before, and it will likely defend its independence again.
The report treats a scholarly interpretation as a political statement, and that is the real issue here. Museums should be free to present history warts and all, without being forced to choose sides. The Franklin exhibit did just that, acknowledging a dark chapter in a founding figure’s life rather than scrubbing it clean.
The paper wants institutions like the Smithsonian to remain free to curate history without interference from the White House. When the government tries to dictate how history is told, it is the institution’s independence, not its integrity, that suffers.
Source material: “How the Smithsonian became the latest front in Trump’s culture war,” Ars Technica.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.