The Smithsonian Must Sever Its Ties to Federal Control
Recently, the Smithsonian Institution has dominated headlines. President Trump has proposed placing a monumental statue of George Washington outside the National Museum of American History, along with signs warning that the museum’s content reflects a biased perspective. In parallel, the institution’s Secretary is stepping down, and the Smithsonian appears to have sidestepped Congress to establish a new Latino American museum. In related matters, the Smithsonian spent years and substantial sums testing DNA in strands of Thomas Jefferson’s hair to verify whether he fathered children with Sally Hemmings.
The Smithsonian is unlikely to weather the current clash unscathed. The Chief Justice may imagine he can smooth things over with press releases and surrogate assurances. It won’t suffice. My column in Civitas Outlook argues that the Smithsonian ought to declare autonomy from the Federal Government.
Here is the introduction:
The Smithsonian Institution presents a paradox. It exists both within and outside the federal framework. Its nineteen museums and National Zoo receive most of their funding from Congress, yet they also benefit from private donations. The governing Board of Regents blends public officials with private citizens. Despite this blended arrangement, the Smithsonian Institute has long operated with a notable independence from the federal government. Historically, conflicts were rare, as these world-renowned institutions attracted support from Americans across the political spectrum. But in recent years, conservatives have grown frustrated as the Smithsonian has advanced what some describe as progressive orthodoxies regarding race, gender, and politics.
Even as President Trump pushes for greater control over the museums, the Smithsonian is urged to push back. There are moves to bypass Congress in order to establish a new museum for Latino Americans. This is not a battle the Smithsonian can win. If the Smithsonian truly seeks genuine independence, there is only one viable path: a formal separation from the federal government. And if the Smithsonian desires the advantages of federal funding without bearing its burdens, Congress should cut the institution loose.
And, I propose that Justice Breyer could step in to steer the organization through these turbulent waters:
Legislation should involuntarily spin the Smithsonian off into a private entity. The new nonprofit would retain the land and assets it currently holds, while federal appropriations would taper off over time. Current government officials would depart from the board. Perhaps retired Justice Stephen Breyer, who has a background in architecture, could serve as interim Chancellor. Indeed, freeing the institution from federal oversight could spur innovation. It might even make sense to divide the nineteen museums and the National Zoo into separate organizations. Some donors would be inclined to support the panda exhibit, while others would fund displays about stamp collecting. There is no compelling reason that all of these ventures need to be subsumed under a single, slow-moving bureaucracy.
The Smithsonian Institution stands at a critical juncture. The trust built since the nineteenth century has been squandered. If Chief Justice Roberts truly believes in the Smithsonian’s independence, his most meaningful act of institutional generosity would be to relinquish his own seat.
Or, the path to ending the institution’s dependence on the federal government is to stop relying on it altogether.
