The Smithsonian Institution, the world’s largest museum complex, is seeking societal transformation in the United States and promoting a narrative of “American wickedness,” Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told a House panel Tuesday. “Teaching lessons about American wickedness is now the mission of the Smithsonian,” Gonzalez said during a hearing of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency. “It is the intent of the leadership, and it is precisely what they train the staff to do.” The hearing was titled, “Rewriting American History: Examining the Smithsonian’s Efforts to Reshape the Past.” Gonzalez noted that Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch III and its National Museum of American History Director Anthea Hartig have pushed these narratives on “American wickedness” and societal transformation. Specifically, he said that the institution’s leadership sought to promote the “1619 Project,” a controversial history of America panned by both conservative and liberal historians. Simultaneously, it promoted the Black Lives Matter movement. “You need to clean house and relieve all Smithsonian leadership of their duties,” Gonzalez said. Hartig, in her remarks at Tuesday’s hearing, strongly defended the museum as patriotic, adding that it is committed to nonpartisanship and telling the full history of the United States. “I have watched 10-year-olds with their families stand in front of the Star-Spangled Banner with their hands over their hearts. No one told them to,” Hartig told the panel. “That is the National Museum of American History at its most powerful, patriotism, not instructed but inspired.” NOW STREAMING Radical Shift: Inside the Smithsonian's Ideological Takeover***Viewer discretion advised***The Smithsonian has been holding the true American story hostage. By hijacking this once-great institution, museum leadership traded the redemptive story of liberty and… pic.twitter.com/v1dB8AJOeM— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) July 21, 2026 Hartig noted, “The museum does not take sides in America’s political debates.” “We preserve and document the evidence of American life in all of its breadth, so that the public can encounter the past and draw their own conclusions,” Hartig said. “We are also always learning when visitors, scholars, members of Congress, veterans and teachers, volunteers, tell us we’ve gotten something wrong, or only half right. We take it seriously. And we make the changes when the evidence supports them.” During the hearing, Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., accused Gonzalez of an “ongoing vendetta” against the Smithsonian. He asked him who should decide what exhibits should be featured at a museum. Gonzalez said a museum’s leadership should decide that question, but noted, “Taxpayers spend $1.1 billion on the museum, so the museum is accountable to the taxpayer.” He said that societal transformation is “not why Americans entrusted these institutions to them.” The hearing was prompted in part by a recent White House Domestic Policy Council report, “Saving America’s Story: How Ideological Capture at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History Erases Our Heritage.” She said the institution’s leadership takes the White House report seriously, but disagrees with its conclusion. Subcommittee Chairman Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., pointed to explicit exhibits featured in the museum and asked if the images were appropriate for public display. “You have pictures of bondage, you have some overtly sexual things up there, you have transgender folks,” Burchett noted. “Do you really think that content is appropriate for children?” Hartig said the exhibit in question was, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated),” a temporary exhibit from 2020 in the museum that was not intended for children. “In that exhibit, sir, with permission of the author, we shared a 13-year-old diary, which I believe is what you’re discussing, and in that diary, they wrote about sleepovers and Latin class and math exams,” Hartig said. Burchett pressed her to answer the question: “You are funded by taxpayers, and taxpayers would like to know, is that appropriate?” “Girlhood (It’s Complicated) was not designed for children,” Hartig said. “It had a label in the beginning of the exhibition that shared with parents about some of the topics that would be covered. And we do that with exhibitions that we think need that help.” Later, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, asked her about a “MASS Action Toolkit” which said the concept of objectivity was a tool of white supremacy. MASS was an acronym for “Museums as a Site for Social Action.” After Hartig said objectivity is one of the goals of the museum, Gill referenced the toolkit and said, “Are you promoting a white supremacy culture at the Smithsonian?” Hartig began jotting down notes on a legal pad without answering for a few awkward seconds. Gill asked, “Is this a difficult question?” Hartig said, “No, sir, I’m just thinking about the MASS Action Toolkit. We didn’t develop it.” She added, “No, we’re not promoting any ideology.” Gill noted the Smithsonian used the toolkit as a reference. Gonzalez later noted the toolkit was a three-year roadmap used by the Smithsonian staff to address race, class, and gender. One of the Democrat-called witnesses, Yale history professor David Blight complained, “President Trump has declared war on free minds and free education.” When asked by Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., why “fascists and autocrats attack cultural institutions like museums,” he answered, “It’s because they believe that’s where you can control people’s minds.” Gonzalez added that is a trademark of Marxist regimes as well. “This is what Marxists do. I think that people who want to truly transform the country seize the cultural institutions in order to mold how people think, their own words,” Gonzalez said. “The leadership of the Smithsonian says constantly that he wants to use the museum to transform America, for societal transformation. They see history itself as a tool, an instrument, to change society. So, you only have to quote what they say they want to do.”

In the early 20th century, two of England’s intellectual giants engaged in a series of debates. Playwright George Bernard Shaw was the resident apologist for income redistribution and central planning. G.K. Chesterton, a Catholic writer, argued in favor of property rights and the decentralization of political power. “I found they were utterly insensate and grotesque,” Shaw said of arguments for wealth inequality. “Eventually, I was convinced we ought to be tolerant of any sort of crime except unequal distribution of income.” Shaw’s words were a distillation of what is, with less elegance and more stridency, the central thesis of the modern day Democratic Socialist. “There ought to be in the world a great mass of scattered powers, privileges, limits, points of resistance, so that the mass of the Commons may resist tyranny,” responded Chesterton. “There is a permanent possibility of that central direction, however much it may have been appointed to distribute money equally, becoming a tyranny.” Chesterton wasn’t finished. “Shaw proposes to distribute wealth,” Chesterton summarized. “We propose to distribute power.” Chesterton sounded a lot like 21st-century Constitutional conservatives who believe dispersal of power is the root of liberty and prosperity—That federalism and free markets are the antidote to redistributionist claims. It’s been a debate raging in America since our founding: How do we best distribute power? From the top down or the bottom up? With the individual—and, as Chesterton argued, God—as sovereign? Or the state and its credentialed central planners, as Shaw argued? While Democratic Socialists in New York City, Denver, and other locales are resoundingly winning primaries—and seemingly the debate within the Democrat Party—federalism has been piling up substantive policy wins. And unlike the splashy media headlines generated by the recent socialist political victories, those victories are compounding quietly over time. The American Legislative Exchange Council recently released its annual “Rich States, Poor States” index. In it, the leading policy group in America tracking economic performance among and between the states (and the policies that drive that performance) reported that red states once again dominated the top 10 performers. Utah topped the list, and not for the first time. Blue states once again dominated the bottom 10, with New York besting New Jersey for last place. “As laboratories of democracy, the top states in this year’s report are demonstrating that low-tax, light-touch regulatory policies attract families, businesses, and opportunity,” said ALEC President and Chief Economist Jonathan Williams. “Meanwhile, states at the bottom of the rankings continue to lose residents to those embracing economic freedom. If you don’t trust ALEC’s report, ask Jamie Dimon, who runs one of the biggest banks in the country, employing over 200,000 Americans. His letter to shareholders of JP Morgan this past April said it all: “While New York City is still our company’s global headquarters, we have shrunk our headcount in the city from 30,000 a decade ago to 24,000 today, and increased our headcount in Texas from 26,000 in 2015 to 32,000 today. This trend will likely continue.” If you don’t believe Dimon, maybe you’ll trust U-Haul, which knows a thing or two about where working-class Americans are moving from—and to. “Texas reclaims the title of No. 1 U-Haul growth state for the seventh time in 10 years,” the company reported in their annual Growth Index released in early 2026. Topping the list of outflow migration was the Golden State. “California’s exodus of do-it-yourself movers was greater than any other state,” the U-Haul report added. Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois rounded out the bottom five of the index. And if you don’t believe U-Haul, the United Van Lines Annual National Movers Study in December of 2025 had similar findings, with New Jersey leading the nation in net outflow migration for the 8th straight year. How bad is it in The Garden State? A Monmouth University poll in 2024 revealed that nearly 50% of New Jersey residents hoped to one day leave the state: confiscatory taxes topped the list of things that drove the result. The state had the nation’s highest property taxes, the fourth highest income tax rate, cracked the top ten corporate tax list—and  the gasoline tax, too (50 cents per gallon as opposed to 20 in Texas). The fact is that American businesses and the American people are fleeing blue states that treat their work, families, homes, and businesses poorly and racing to red states that treat them well. In short, what blue states have excelled at in the past two decades is creating American refugees. Red states have excelled in attracting them. And moving isn’t something that ranks high on the list of things Americans love to do. A survey by OnePoll reported that 64% of Americans believe it’s the most stressful thing they go through, a percentage point above divorce. These numbers matter on more than just the economic front. This mass migration is having a profound impact on the electoral college, too. In 1960, Illinois had 27 electoral votes. By 2000, Illinois had dropped from 27 to 22, Massachusetts from 14 to 12, New Jersey from 16 to 15, New York from 45 to 33, and PA from 32 to 23. In 2024, Illinois dropped again—to 19. Massachusetts now stands at 11, New Jersey at 14, New York at 28, and PA at 23. Contrast that with just two red states, Texas and Florida—both of which boast no income tax, low regulatory regimes, and little union influence. In 1960, Texas had 24 electoral votes. In 2000, that number grew to 32. And by 2024, it had catapulted to 40. Florida’s electoral vote growth was even more remarkable. In 1960, Florida had 10 electoral votes. By 2000, it had skyrocketed to 25, and in 2024, that number rose to 30.   That’s why the Democrats—and their academic and media allies—so hate the electoral college. But what they really hate are the rational and difficult choices Americans across the country are making, moving precious assets and capital—lives, careers, and families—from blue states to red. Many people today hate the Constitution—especially the 10th Amendment, which disperses power to the states. It’s federalism itself they hate. They hate federalism because it creates competition—and a real-life scorecard. Americans are voting with their feet because of that competition. Because of that scorecard. But what the modern Left seems to hate most of all is reality itself. They’re at war with the real-life impact of their public policy positions, and they’ll keep losing citizens—and electoral votes—if they don’t change them. Given the ongoing education freedom movement—ALEC’s Top 10 states in their annual Index of State Education Freedom is dominated by red states—blue states will continue losing families at an even faster clip. Especially if blue states continue to lurch further left toward socialism. One reality is certain: If blue states keep driving Americans to red states, the 2030 Census will produce a continued shift in the electoral map in favor of Republicans. This shift will make it all but impossible for Democrats to win back the White House. A version of this article originally appeared in Newsweek on May 20, 2022. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

The Trump administration is pausing more than a billion dollars in Medicaid funding to California and Minnesota because of suspected fraud. “That includes more than $860 million for California and over $200 million for Minnesota,” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Tuesday at a press conference. “If those states want that money, they need to provide documentation that these payments are legitimate.” NEW: CMS is pausing more than a billion dollars in federal Medicaid payments to California and Minnesota because of suspected fraud and noncompliance, @SecKennedy says. @DailySignal pic.twitter.com/qkyYSVl4Ak— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) July 21, 2026 Kennedy also announced that he is expanding the authority of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Office of Inspector General to exclude bad actors from funding. “We will be able to use that authority to remove bad actors from federal healthcare programs and, in many cases, to permanently ban them from returning,” Kennedy said. According to an HHS release, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services identified “spending growth that far exceeded national trends” in California in-home care programs. In Minnesota, CMS found Medicaid claims “that require additional documentation, including expenditures linked to providers flagged through program integrity reviews and other claims with potential eligibility or billing concerns.” The secretary added that California and Minnesota can recover their funding if they “find basic documentation” revealing that questionable funding recipients “are legitimate and not fraudulent.”  “We want them to come alongside us, federal partners, to ensure that Medicaid dollars go to the services that are required by real people with real problems getting real care,” said Dr. Mehmet Oz, CMS administrator. The state Medicaid offices for California and Minnesota did not immediately respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.  In response to a question from the Daily Signal, Oz said the Trump administration has been working with the administrations of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to guide them into compliance so the funds can be released. The Walz administration has already returned some requested documents, he said. “The purpose is to give the money back if they can demonstrate that it’s truly being well spent,” he said. “We’re still working many issues with California. It’s much bigger program and lots of different kinds of issues happening here for you.” After announcing that $1 billion in Medicaid funds was paused for MN and CA, @DrOz tells @DailySignal he has been working with Govs. Walz and Newsom's administrations. Minnesota has already returned some requested documents, he said."The purpose is to give the money back if… pic.twitter.com/DBXcf8dglJ— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) July 21, 2026 Dan Brillman, director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, said the blue states need to do three things to once again receive funding. “They need to produce complete documentation supporting the claims that were submitted,” he said. “Second, they need to validate that the beneficiaries were eligible, that providers were qualified to bill for Medicaid, services were actually delivered, claims complied with federal and state requirements, and third, most importantly…when states identify problems, they need to take action.” Brillman said if the documentation supports the claims, federal funds will move forward. He said the administration’s goal is to make sure every dollar goes to where it’s supposed to go. “If it does not, taxpayers should not be paying for these services or these claims,” he said. “This is exactly how the stewardship of taxpayer dollars is supposed to work.”

The country roads of America brought the world across our land, as our role hosting the World Cup fittingly coincided with America 250. The sprawling event on a grand stage reminded the world—and us—about important realities of our nation at its quarter-millennial birthday. Now, like most Americans, I hugely prefer our football—which starts soon. We are just culturally biased toward a game that is far higher scoring, much more violent, and far more of a spectacle. We opt for the sports version of opera, with heightened, dangerous drama, rather than the grind and nuance of soccer. But regardless of anyone’s sports preferences, the World Cup served to remind the world about the realities of Americans and life in the United States. Pew Research recently revealed that global polling shows China is now viewed more favorably than the U.S. around the world. It marked the first time in two decades of polling that China has surpassed America by this metric. Notably, very few of those respondents wish to immigrate to China, even if it were possible. In contrast, most of the world yearns to come to the U.S. Nonetheless, America does have an emerging image problem. As America reasserts a populist nationalist worldview, some of this resentment is expected and even helpful. After all, it is more vital for a strong nation state to be properly respected, and even feared, than to be loved. But the World Cup experience made clear that much, if not most, of America’s image problem abroad flows from myths. Smears of the U.S. flow nonstop from legacy media platforms, especially the most powerful ones in the rest of the Western world. Unfortunately, the whole world lags badly behind America in developing alternative new media. Consequently, those legacy outlets in places like England and Brazil still shape public opinion very effectively. Like the legacy media players here, those media conglomerates constantly push a dispiriting false narrative that the U.S. is a brutish bully country, bereft of both sophistication and gentility. But then the world came to America. More specifically, the world came to “parts unknown” to most foreign travelers. When these international visitors ventured beyond New York City and Disney World, they found a giant, diverse country of wonder, hospitality, openness, and just plain fun. Thankfully, social media fostered an unfiltered flow of storytelling, straight from the experiences of the international fans themselves. These superfans could not get enough of America, especially flyover country, the parts of the nation normally ignored by their home media outlets. The joy of the visitors was genuine and immense, and it was returned in kind by generous Americans thrilled to show off local customs and cuisines. Some of these social media accounts went viral, and the videos truly entertained the world. We will never forget the amazed reactions of Japanese fans eating BBQ in Texas and the champion Spanish team gushing with gratitude for their training camp hosts in Appalachia, in my hometown of Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Norwegians “rowing” all across the States became a meme, and the Scots sang like one giant bawdy chorus as they outdrank even the Irish-American locals in Boston pubs. Speaking of singing, the playlist for global soccer reflects the enduring soft power of American culture. Matches across the globe feature American songs, from “Sweet Caroline” to country favorites, and especially “Country Roads.” In fact, that John Denver ballad has become the unofficial anthem of global sports, belted out with gusto all over the earth by people who know nothing about West Virginia. The throngs of happy foreigners loved on America. They sang our classic tunes with overseas accents and highlighted the unique appeal of the U.S. to the world, at least when America is authentically presented. The world saw that the U.S. is not the caricature portrayed to them by The Times of London, Der Spiegel, or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Instead, visitors marinated in the vibrancy and eccentricity of regional American cultures. The guests were welcomed with open arms by a country that is largely not enamored with their sport but grateful to serve as host country regardless. As these masses of visitors marveled at our stadiums, they also came to understand the emerging consensus among American citizens regarding foreigners. The U.S. is an exceedingly generous and welcoming country. We allow far more legal immigration than any other country on earth. Even the most nationalist among us do not seek a “Fortress America,” sealed off from the globe. Instead, we demand a country that welcomes the world, but only on our terms. As our nation turns 250 years old, Americans have much to celebrate, of course. We also face major challenges and intense debates over foundational principles. For example, the modern Democratic Party is increasingly devolving into an extremist alliance of Marxists and jihadis, the starkest challenge to the Union since the Civil War. But we are a great and mighty country as well, showcased superbly through the carnival of the world’s soccer championship. The world experienced the dynamism of the U.S. economy, the warmth of Americans as friends, and the spirit of the greatest republic ever to exist. As the fans now fly home across the oceans, they bring with them a new and realistic vision of who Americans truly are. Accordingly, they might explain to their countrymen that in America, “life is old there, older than the trees, younger than the mountains, growin’ like a breeze.” We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal senior contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Victor Davis Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes. Jack Fowler: Donald Trump gives a speech to the nation on the 2020 election and the involvement of our intelligence agencies and other bad actors and mayhem. Many of the networks did not carry it, disparaged it in advance, had to fact-check it, etc.  What’s your take on what Donald Trump said and your take on the spin or the intransigence of these liberal media—excuse me, leftist media elites?  Victor Davis Hanson: Well, I don’t think it’s—I mean, we’ve got so many things right now with the budget and the SAVE Act and Iran. We’ve got great economic news on inflation. GDP is pretty good. I’m still worried about the deficit, but that’s another topic.  I don’t know. When you address the nation, maybe it would have been on Iran, or maybe it would have been on the good news from the economy.  But that election—I understand he wants to remind people so that they don’t do it the next time. But I think the whole MAGA emphasis on actual Election Day cheating—and now we hear from Markwayne Mullin that there are 1 million unregistered voters who got ballots.  Fowler: He says there are 250,000 noncitizens registered to vote in four Democrat-run states.   Hanson: Yes, four states. One million voters. That could have changed any of the swing states. They were illegal, and they knew it.  But the issue, I think, he should say is, “I’m not going to adjudicate 2020 because, by the time the ballots were cast, the system had been altered under the pretense of COVID.”  And now, what do I mean by that?  Then he could just go through the items that Molly Ball, in her triumphalist article—she’s a woman of the Left—bragged about. They changed the voting laws by going through lawsuits to district court judges and, in blue states, bypassing the legislatures.  What had traditionally been 30% absentee ballots was renamed and rebranded as mail-in ballots, and that became almost 70% nationwide.  Under the guise of COVID, they brought in rules that said you could register to vote without an ID or a driver’s license. They would give you an ID if you had—you could use a credit card, you could use almost anything. But if you didn’t have anything, they would give you a number, and then you could vote that same day. You could ballot harvest.  That changed, radically, the entire American electoral system in one direction—for the Left.  That’s what I wish he would concentrate on. I don’t know if it was legal or illegal, but the way they did it altered the way we voted.  If you look at population increases, there’s no way in the world that you would get so many people voting. More people voted in 2020 than in 2024. It was just outstanding. It was a sudden rise in voters.  We know now that Mark Zuckerberg spent $417 million to appropriate the work of election registrars in key swing states.  By that I mean he basically gave them all this money to put drop boxes all over their states that couldn’t really be accounted for, and money to sue to extend the acceptance of mail-in ballots—as here in California—for seven to 10 days, depending on the particular state, after Election Day.  So, it really ruined the system. It really did.  And we know it because Sen. [Elissa] Slotkin let the cat out of the bag when she was commenting on the SAVE Act. She said, you know, everybody’s going to have an ID. Everybody’s going to have to be preregistered. You still have a window where you can vote early if you wish. You can mail in a ballot, but it’ll be an absentee ballot. You’ll need an excuse like we used to.  Primarily, you’re going to be expected to show up at the polls, show an ID, and your name will be crossed off a list of previously registered voters. If you’re not registered that day, you’re not going to vote. If you don’t show up that day, you’re not going to vote.  And when she said, “Well, we can’t win elections like that”—that’s basically what she said. “We can’t … ”  Of course, she was right. They can’t.  So, that was the biggest piece of legislation, I think, that the Senate is dealing with. They’ve only got, what, 20 days before recess?  Fowler: Hardly any time.  Hanson: I don’t know why they’re not doing something about it. I know there are holdouts. Why don’t they go to Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski or Rand Paul—whoever it is. I don’t think he’s with the opposition on this one. Just say to them, “What do you object to, and how can we work to get your votes and get this through?”  Yeah. And, you know, JD [Vance]—he is the head of the Senate.   Fowler: He’s president of the Senate.  Hanson: Yeah, he’s president of the Senate, and he breaks tie votes.  I think Kim Strassel wrote a pretty tough article about him. I know both JD and Kim, and I like them both. But she had a point. Time is running out, and you’ve really got to galvanize the senators.  They’re not that close. Trump is a different type of politician. You want the president of the Senate—your guy—to go camp out in the Senate and count votes every single day, then find out how many you need and what they want.  You don’t want to go on Joe Rogan, or something, pushing your book while you’re vice president at this particular time, when you have a recess coming up.  My point is, if I were vice president and I were to write a book, I would have timed the publication date to coincide with the August recess. Then I would’ve spent every single moment—20 hours a day—on that Senate floor and on the phone making sure you got this passed.  Otherwise, it looks like a complete disorganized mess.  Fowler: Yeah. Kim’s Wall Street Journal op-ed begins: “Republicans  were eagerly awaiting their Tuesday meeting with Vice President JD Vance, hoping he’d break Congress’s gridlock. They instead were notified of a scheduling conflict as Air Force Two winged to Texas.”  That’s where he went for the Joe Rogan Experience, where he bashed the Senate for its, quote, “procedural bull—-.”  And yes, he’s promoting a book.  Another tough article, along the same lines—and I think even stronger—came from Lee Smith in The Tablet. He compared Vance to Barack Obama. He also pointed out that Vance has now written a second memoir before even turning 45.  Very tough stuff, I think.  So, how much of it is deserved? I don’t know, Victor.  Hanson: I don’t know either. But I do know this: Right now, we’re in a fighting mode in the Middle East. Israel is giving us targeting information, Iran is attacking us, and the Gulf States are not doing anything.  It doesn’t seem wise to say that Israel can’t kill its way out of its problem.  As soon as Trump turned his attention to the Lebanese government and said, “Hezbollah is the reason why Israel is there. So if you want Israel out of Lebanon, you have to work with us. Now that we’ve defanged Iran and they don’t have any money, now is the time. You’ll never have a better opportunity to get Hezbollah out.”  Israel said, “If you don’t send missiles into us, we will withdraw.”  So, given everything I just said, I don’t know why you’d say that our only ally can’t kill its way out of its problem. That’s what I don’t understand.  On Oct. 7, there were 5,000 people. They were not just Hamas. They were members of all those Palestinian radical terrorist groups that sent volunteers. There were also tag-along people who just wanted to go kill, rape, and torture Jews, and they all went in there.  Take away that attack, and we wouldn’t be where we are now. It’s very simple.  I don’t see why people can’t see that.  Instead, you wait three weeks. You don’t go into Gaza. You say to them, “Give us back the hostages. Give us the people who committed the murders.” They don’t do it.  Then what are you supposed to do?  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.