On the same day that he accuses President Trump of circumventing Congress to erect a new edifice, his own agency moves to bypass Congress in order to assemble a new structure as well.
In parallel, while Chief Justice Roberts voted to halt the East Ballroom project because Congress had not granted authorization, the Chief Justice’s other institution proceeded to sidestep Congress to advance a plan for a new museum. It may be that few readers connected these two developments, but that’s precisely the point of this blog.
For years there has been a push to add new Smithsonian museums on the National Mall to honor African Americans, Latino Americans, and Women. The African American museum opened in 2016, yet it somehow neglected to mention any of Clarence Thomas’s accomplishments. (If only one of Thomas’s colleagues were at the helm!) Regrettably, progress toward establishing the Latino Americans and Women’s museums stalled for a long time.
In December 2020, Congress authorized two additional Smithsonian museums for Latino Americans and Women. Congress pointed to two potential sites on the Mall near the Washington Monument, or the Arts and Industries Building, which sits adjacent to the Smithsonian Castle. In 2022, the Smithsonian Board of Regents chose the two sites on the Mall near the Washington Monument for new construction. Both locations would have required congressional approval.
“The Board of Regents has been committed to meeting the December deadline Congress set for the selection of sites for these important new museums,” Steve Case, chairman of the Board of Regents, said in an email to The Washington Post. “Our search has narrowed to two sites on the National Mall that we believe are optimal, and appropriate. We hope Congress will now consider legislation so we can move forward, as we seek to more fully showcase our collective American journey.”
The Regents discarded the Arts and Industries Building from the process:
With this move, the Board of Regents effectively eliminates what was once considered the most plausible option for at least one of the museums: the Arts and Industries Building, which had also been a candidate for the African American Museum and is the only site among the four selected in June under Smithsonian control. [Lonnie] Bunch stated in June that the Arts and Industries Building, conceived in the 19th-century, World’s Fair–era “Festival” style, would require study to determine how it could be reimagined as a 21st-century museum.
Indeed, transforming that building would have meant excavating to add an underground annex:
The building resurfaced as a proposed home in 2016, when Becerra and then-Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) introduced legislation that would have placed the museum there and added an underground annex. The historic structure posed challenges for a modern museum: Its soaring ceilings and skylights were not designed for conventional exhibitions.
Fast forward to the Trump era. Legislation to authorize the Woman’s Museum and the Latino Museum stalled after an amendment would have restricted the museum’s exhibits to “biological women” and barred any depiction of “any biological male as a female.” Furthermore, President Trump’s 2026 budget would have eliminated the Latino Museum altogether.
Trump’s proposed 2026 budget sought to end separate funding for the standalone museum and instead integrate Latino programming across the Smithsonian. The plan drew objections from Democrats as well as Republican members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who called eliminating the museum’s funding a “disservice to the American public.” A White House official said at the time there was no reason to provide construction funding because Congress had not approved a site.
What did the Smithsonian Institution do in response to these political obstacles? They returned to the Arts and Industries Building as the site for the Latino Museum. Why this choice? Objectively, it wasn’t the best site. But since the Smithsonian already owned the property, it did not require new authorization. It remains unclear whether Congress would need to appropriate funds; presumably, the Smithsonian would seek private gifts to finance the museum, much as it did for the African American History Museum.
Don’t just take my word for it. Read the Washington Post:
The decision revives a plan the Smithsonian considered but discarded years ago, marking a major shift for a project whose proponents have spent decades pushing for a new building on the National Mall designed specifically for the museum. It also gives the Smithsonian a path forward that does not depend on Congress approving construction on one of the undeveloped sites the institution previously selected.
The Smithsonian had chosen two sites near the Washington Monument for its two new museums — one opposite the National Museum of African American History and Culture and another between the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Tidal Basin. Both are under the control of the National Park Service and sit within the Reserve, an area of the Mall where Congress restricts new construction.
Because the Smithsonian owns the Arts and Industries Building, the institution could determine how to use it without needing additional legislation.
That distinction could prove consequential. Building a Smithsonian museum from the ground up can take a decade or more, even after Congress grants authorization. The National Museum of African American History and Culture took more than ten years to realize after its five-acre site was picked.
Mike Gonzalez of Heritage argued the obvious: “And the only reason for that is that the Smithsonian could never win a vote in Congress to house the Latino Museum anywhere else, so it had to use a building it already owned, the Arts and Industries Building.”
All of this should ring familiar. You see, when Congress blocked authorization and refused to fund the new project, the Smithsonian simply found a workaround using an existing site and private funding.
Who leads the Smithsonian Institution? John Roberts. On the same day that he accused President Trump of bypassing Congress to erect a new structure in Washington, D.C., his own institution bypassed Congress to erect a new structure in Washington, D.C. A striking display of chutzpah, wouldn’t you say?
In my essay on the cult of judicial celebrity, I urged Congress to remove the Chief Justice as the Chancellor of the Smithsonian:
As always, change should begin at the top. The Chief Justice serves as Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution. Why? The Chief Justice lacks formal training in research or museum management. Why should he hold this title? Chief Justice Roberts recently stated that serving as Chancellor is “the best thing about being the Chief Justice” even though he is “the one person in the room that really doesn’t know . . . what’s involved.” The first Chief Justice to hold the post was Roger B. Taney, who assumed it after Vice President Millard Fillmore became President. Moreover, in recent times, the Smithsonian has found itself at odds with President Trump. It would make sense for the Chief Justice to step back from this field and from any related controversies. Indeed, Congress should modify the law that requires the Chief Justice to sit on the Smithsonian Board of Regents altogether.
Perhaps Congress should go further and investigate? Perhaps someone strolling by the National Mall should sue to block any subterranean annex. If there is standing to spot a green crocodile there should be standing to spot red bricks. Judge Leon could recycle a few of his exclamation points.
Unfortunately, the Woman’s Museum will have to wait. There is no other existing structure suitable for its location. Remember, the 15th Amendment predates the 19th Amendment. The Chief Justice’s priorities are clear.
After some reflection, I suspect Roberts viewed the East Wing project as a blow to his idealized picture of Washington, D.C. He cares deeply about appearances and was prepared to overrule considerations of propriety and national security to preserve the mall’s aesthetic.
I’m done discussing the ballroom—for now, at least.
