House Republicans Target Smithsonian Over Show on US-Made Munitions

Two Republican congressmen have demanded documents on how the Smithsonian Institution reviews its exhibitions, after a museum display linked US-manufactured weapons to the destruction of civilian homes in Iraq, Syria and Gaza.

Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee, chairman of the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, and Representative Brian Jack of Georgia sent the letter dated October 28 to outgoing Smithsonian secretary Lonnie Bunch III.

"The Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency is concerned that the Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian) does not properly review proposed exhibits in its museums," the letter states.

What is the dispute about?

The letter singles out one commission: "Patterns of Life," created by data journalist Mona Chalabi, born in London and now based in New York, together with SITU Research, a visual investigation practice founded in Brooklyn in 2005. It appeared in "Making Home—Smithsonian Design Triennial" (2024–25) at the Cooper Hewitt in New York.

The project, as the museum's website describes it, "reflects on the experiences of three individuals whose homes were destroyed by domicide—the widespread and systematic destruction of housing due to military conflict, urban development, or social upheaval." The creators note that the United Nations is reviewing domicide for potential recognition as a crime under international law.

Chalabi and SITU documented homes destroyed by US-made weapons during airstrikes in Iraq in 2015, Syria in 2016 and Gaza in 2023. Architectural models of the homes represented heirlooms, books, toys and other household objects to "celebrate the intimate lives within those homes," according to the museum.

The commission was one of 25 projects in the Triennial. Other contributors included visual artists La Vaughn Belle, Hugh Hayden, Joiri Minaya, Robert Earl Paige, William Scott, Amie Siegel and Renée Stout, alongside photographers, designers and interdisciplinary collectives. The show aimed to "explore design's role in shaping the physical and emotional realities of home across the United States, US Territories, and Tribal Nations."

What do the lawmakers claim?

Burchett and Jack write that the installation was "originally proposed to showcase 10 New York City buildings compressed into a single room," but that "this originally uncontroversial proposal was turned into a display of homes destroyed by American made munitions in various military engagements against ISIS and other terrorist organizations."

They also object to what they say the Smithsonian described as organizers' wish "to portray American military doctrine and even America's founding as being intertwined with 'domicide,' defined as 'the massive and deliberate destruction of homes in order to cause human suffering.'"

"The Smithsonian Institution was founded for the increase and diffusion of knowledge," the letter reads. "Its content review procedures need to be sufficiently robust to prevent blatantly partisan and inaccurate exhibitions."

The lawmakers say they first requested information on the Smithsonian's content review process at a July 21 hearing titled "Rewriting American History: Examining the Smithsonian's Efforts to Reshape the Past," and that the institution has failed to provide it. At that hearing, Burchett pressed National Museum of American History director Anthea Hartig with the question: "Dr. Hartig, are you America first? Do you love America?"

Is the display one-sided?

The lawmakers' characterization does not fit the display entirely, at least on the museum's own account. The Cooper Hewitt states that "'Patterns of Life' illuminates the complex role of the US in this issue, as it stands as the leading financial contributor to United Nations peacekeeping initiatives, but also the world's largest producer of arms."

Neither the Cooper Hewitt nor the Smithsonian Institution immediately responded to a request for comment.

What does this change for the Smithsonian?

The pressure is financial as much as rhetorical. Congress supplies the majority of the institution's funding, and Republicans have targeted the Smithsonian since the start of President Donald Trump's second term, when he signed an executive order aimed at the institution. As recently as September, the White House accused the Smithsonian of discrimination and threatened to cut federal grants. The new letter, addressed to a secretary already on his way out, signals that curatorial process itself—not any single exhibition—has become the object of congressional scrutiny, and that future commissions touching US military conduct will face review before the fact, not after.