In November 2021, the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History opened an exhibit titled The Electric Dr. Franklin, which explored Benjamin Franklin’s contributions to electrical science. The exhibit also addressed the complex aspects of Franklin’s life, noting that he had enslaved people in his household before becoming an abolitionist. It suggested that Franklin’s scientific achievements may have been partially enabled by the labor of enslaved individuals and speculated that he might have used them in his electrical research. The exhibit acknowledged that while Franklin wrote about experiments involving electrical shocks, he rarely identified who helped him, leaving room for the possibility that indentured servants or enslaved people may have contributed to his work, although this remains uncertain. The exhibit aimed to provide a more nuanced view of Franklin’s legacy by highlighting both his scientific contributions and the moral contradictions of his life. It closed in 2025 but remains available online, allowing continued public access to its content. However, the exhibit drew criticism from some quarters. In July, a 162-page report released by the White House criticized the museum, arguing that it had fallen victim to what the report called an “ideological capture.” According to the report, the museum had shifted its focus from historical education and scholarly research to what it described as “extreme political activism” aimed at reshaping the country’s values and narratives. The report accused the museum of prioritizing contemporary political agendas over the traditional mission of preserving and presenting historical facts in an objective manner. It suggested that the museum’s approach to exhibits, including The Electric Dr. Franklin, reflected a broader trend of using historical figures and events to advance ideological goals rather than simply educating the public. This criticism has sparked a broader debate about the role of museums in interpreting history and whether they should address modern social issues through historical narratives. The controversy surrounding the exhibit highlights the ongoing discussion about how history is taught and interpreted in public institutions. While the museum defends its approach as a necessary effort to provide a more complete and inclusive understanding of the past, critics argue that such efforts risk distorting historical facts to fit modern political perspectives. The debate continues as institutions like the Smithsonian navigate the balance between historical scholarship and contemporary social values.