Saving America's Story begins with the Truth
The release of the White House report Saving America’s Story has renewed an important national conversation. Predictably, the report has generated sharply differing reactions. Some have welcomed it as a necessary corrective; others have dismissed it as an attack on the Smithsonian Institution. Both responses, however, miss the larger issue. The central question is not whether one agrees with every criticism contained in the report. Rather, it raises a far more fundamental question. What is the proper mission of a national museum entrusted with preserving the history of the American people?
History should never be propaganda. Neither should it become an instrument of ideological activism. Its highest calling is to pursue truth faithfully, presenting the American story honestly, accurately, and with the humility that recognizes both our remarkable achievements and our undeniable failures.
Before reaching any conclusions about the White House report, readers should carefully examine the evidence upon which it rests. The report does not rely upon broad accusations or sweeping rhetoric. Instead, it documents specific exhibits, institutional statements, interpretive narratives, and curatorial choices that, taken together, reveal a discernible shift in how the Smithsonian presents the American story. Among other examples, the report cites statements by museum leadership expressing an intent to “reframe the traditional celebratory narrative of U.S. history” and to “transform the national historical narrative.” It also observes that visitors searching for exhibits devoted to telling the broad story of America’s Founding—including the Founders, the Second Continental Congress, the Pilgrims, the Mayflower, and Washington crossing the Delaware—will find comparatively little dedicated to that defining chapter of our national heritage.
These are not abstract criticisms. They are concrete examples that invite careful examination. Readers may ultimately disagree with some of the report’s conclusions, but they should first examine the evidence upon which those conclusions rest. The report’s greatest strength is that it largely allows the documentary record, including official statements, exhibit text, photographs, and curatorial decisions, to speak for itself.
Museums inevitably make judgments about what deserves prominence and what receives only passing attention. Those judgments shape the public’s understanding of history. A constitutional republic depends upon an informed citizenry. When the public’s understanding of its own history becomes distorted, constitutional self-government itself becomes more difficult to sustain. My purpose is not to criticize individual curators or to diminish the importance of telling difficult chapters of our national history. Slavery, segregation, injustice, and discrimination must never be ignored or minimized. They are part of the American story and should be taught honestly. The question is whether those realities become the defining narrative through which every other aspect of American history is interpreted.
My own observations are consistent with much of what the White House report documents. Whether viewed individually or collectively, the examples identified in the report reveal an increasing tendency to interpret our nation’s past through the lens of contemporary political activism rather than objective historical scholarship. Too often, visitors are encouraged to view American history principally as a narrative of ideological conflict instead of as a shared inheritance worthy of both honest examination and grateful preservation.
The United States is a constitutional republic founded upon enduring truths about the nature of man, the source of human rights, and the proper limits of governmental power. The Declaration of Independence proclaims that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The Constitution was framed to secure those liberties, not to create them.
These first principles deserve to be taught without apology.
That does not require ignoring slavery, segregation, or other grave injustices in our national history. Indeed, genuine patriotism demands the courage to confront them honestly. A mature nation need not sanitize its past. But neither should it permit its defining institutions to portray America primarily as a story of oppression, exploitation, and failure. The genius of the American experiment lies not in the claim that our nation has always lived consistently with its founding ideals. Rather, it lies in the enduring power of those ideals to expose injustice, correct error, and call each generation toward a more faithful application of liberty and equal justice under law. That is why historical interpretation matters.
No historian is perfectly neutral. Every historian brings assumptions, experiences, and judgments to the task. Yet the vocation of history has always demanded something higher than advocacy. It demands intellectual honesty, careful attention to evidence, respect for historical context, and a willingness to follow the facts wherever they lead. National museums should aspire to that same standard. Their purpose is not to recruit citizens into competing political movements but to cultivate an informed citizenry capable of understanding both the greatness and the failures of the American experiment. They should present evidence rather than political orthodoxy, encourage thoughtful reflection rather than ideological conformity, and cultivate civic gratitude without sacrificing historical accuracy.
The American story is not one of moral perfection. It is the story of imperfect people striving, often inconsistently, to live under transcendent truths greater than themselves. Those truths did not originate with government. They preceded government. Indeed, our constitutional order assumes a moral law that stands above every ruler, every legislature, and every court. Remove that foundation, and constitutional liberty becomes little more than the temporary preference of those who happen to wield political power.
The debate over the Smithsonian concerns the stewardship of every institution entrusted with preserving our national memory. If museums become instruments for advancing contemporary political causes, they cease to function primarily as guardians of history. Conversely, if they ignore painful chapters of our past in favor of patriotic mythology, they fail in precisely the same way. Neither propaganda nor self-loathing serves the cause of truth. The historian’s first obligation is neither to celebrate nor to condemn. It is to tell the truth as faithfully as the evidence permits.
Truth remembers Washington alongside Lincoln, Frederick Douglass alongside Harriet Tubman, the courage of the Founders alongside the sacrifices of those who challenged the nation to fulfill its own promises.
A free people cannot preserve constitutional liberty if they forget the principles that gave it birth.
The preservation of America’s story is therefore not merely about protecting the past. It is about preserving the truth upon which constitutional liberty, civic gratitude, and the future of the American Republic ultimately depend.
