House Panel Demands Smithsonian Exhibit-Review Records; Inspector General Questioned $36,500 in Women's History Funds Spent on Disputed Installation

Two Republican members of the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday asked Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch III for documents on how the Smithsonian reviews proposed exhibits, saying the institution has not followed up on a request they made at a July hearing.

The letter, from Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, and Rep. Brian Jack (R-Ga.), relies heavily on a June 30 report by the Smithsonian's own Office of the Inspector General. That report, which The Digital Free Press reviewed, also questioned $36,500 in federal funds used for the installation at the center of the dispute, a finding the letter does not mention.

What the Lawmakers Are Asking For

The letter says the subcommittee's July 21 hearing examined "failures of the National Museum of American History to properly review exhibitions." At that hearing, the letter says, the museum's director said she would confer with the Smithsonian's general counsel about providing documents, but "the Committee has not received any follow-up communication regarding that request."

The lawmakers asked for all Smithsonian Directives, a timeline for planned revisions to Smithsonian Directive 603, the policy that governs review of sensitive exhibits, all documents and communications about revising it since Jan. 1, 2025, and access to six sets of records at the Smithsonian Institution Archives. They set a deadline of Nov. 11.

The letter focuses on Patterns of Life, an installation in the Making Home Design Triennial at the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum in New York. According to the lawmakers, a proposal to show home designs in a single room "was turned into a display of homes destroyed by American made munitions in various military engagements against ISIS and other terrorist organizations." The letter says organizers tied American military doctrine to "domicide," which the letter defines, citing a Cooper Hewitt event and a United Nations report, as "the massive and deliberate destruction of homes in order to cause human suffering."

"Its content review procedures need to be sufficiently robust to prevent blatantly partisan and inaccurate exhibitions," the letter says.

What the Smithsonian Inspector General Found

The inspector general's report says the installation, shown from November 2024 to August 2025, drew more than 2,600 complaints. It found that Cooper Hewitt "generally followed" the content review process, but that the committee responsible for reviewing sensitive content has no formal authority, role or procedures. Committee members and museum staff were unsure whether the committee's recommendations were mandatory or advisory, the report says, and one member said the committee "does not have the influence it should have."

The inspector general made seven recommendations. Smithsonian management agreed with six and disagreed with one, which would require and track periodic training for staff involved in developing content, citing administrative and logistical challenges, according to the report.

Women's History Money and Late Contracts

The report says Cooper Hewitt paid for part of the installation with $36,500 from the Smithsonian's American Women's History Initiative pool, whose projects must "research, share, and amplify the histories of American women." The original proposal described recreating a street of iconic U.S. home designs from the past 100 years. Cooper Hewitt did not tell the fund's administrators when the concept changed to non-U.S. homes destroyed by U.S. weapons, according to the report, and the museum's director told auditors the change was considered minor and did not warrant notifying them. The administrators "expressed concerns" about not being told, and the inspector general listed the $36,500 as a questioned cost.

The report also found that Cooper Hewitt signed its agreement with the participating research firm 11 days after the exhibition opened and its agreement with the artist five months after it closed. The museum's director attributed the artist contract delay to a change in the name of the company the artist was paid through, according to the report.

Sources: House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, letter to Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III (Oct. 28, 2026): https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Letter-to-Smithsonian-Re-SI-603-request_10.28.26.pdf ; committee press release (Oct. 28, 2026): https://oversight.house.gov/release/burchett-and-jack-investigate-the-smithsonians-improper-review-of-proposed-exhibits/ ; Smithsonian Office of the Inspector General, "Opportunities Exist to Further Strengthen Smithsonian's Content Review Process," OIG-E-26-01 (June 30, 2026): https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/2026-07/OIG-E-26-01_0.pdf