Listen to this article
The Smithsonian Institution is a paradox. It simultaneously exists inside and outside the federal government. The nineteen museums and zoo are funded mostly by Congress but also receive private donations. The governing Board of Regents includes a mix of public officials and private citizens. Despite this commingled status, the Smithsonian Institution has long maintained its independence from the federal government. Historically, few conflicts arose, as these world-class museums appealed to Americans across the political spectrum. But in recent years, conservatives have been left fuming as the Smithsonian now preaches progressive orthodoxies on race, gender, and politics.
Even as President Trump asserts further control of the museums, the Smithsonian Institution is urged to push back. The group seems to be bypassing Congress to construct a new museum for Latino Americans. This is not a fight the Smithsonian can win. If the Smithsonian truly seeks actual independence, there is only one path forward: formal separation from the federal government. And if the Smithsonian wants the benefits of government funding but not the burdens of government control, Congress should cut the Smithsonian loose.
Nearly two centuries ago, the Smithsonian Institution was established “for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.” Yet, from the beginning, its precise status has remained an open question. Chief Justice William Howard Taft, who served as Chancellor of the institution, stated that the Smithsonian “is not, and never has been considered a government bureau.” Rather, the former president explained, “[i]t is a private institution under the guardianship of the Government.” But that isn’t quite right. Theodore Olson, the future Solicitor General, described the Smithsonian as a “very unusual entity” that is at once part of the government and outside it. The Institution receives more than 60 percent of its annual funding from Congress (over $1 billion) but accepts other funds from private donors and endowments. Its governing Board of Regents includes a mix of people from inside and outside the government: the Chief Justice, the Vice President, three senators, three representatives, and nine private citizens.
This quasi-governmental status makes sense in theory, as the pursuit of knowledge can be well-served with public funding without partisan interference. Indeed, institutions that fairly and dispassionately educate Americans should be supported regardless of politics. Alas, the Smithsonian has succumbed to a left-wing conception of American history. A recent White House report concluded that at the Smithsonian, “the basic symbols and stories that once helped unify Americans are presented not as reasons for gratitude and inspiration, but as objects to be inherently questioned, dismantled, ‘problematized,’ and reinterpreted to achieve ideological ends.”
Unsurprisingly, the Smithsonian’s advocates in the academy rejected the White House’s report, but the professoriate cannot profess any neutrality. They likely inspired many of the biased museum exhibits. Is it any wonder that Justice Clarence Thomas was absent from the new African-American history museum? Few institutions have escaped the creeping grasp of woke progressivism. Conservative politicians cannot be expected to blindly support a governmental institution that is hostile to their perspective.
Change is now on the horizon. The longtime Smithsonian Secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch III, has announced his retirement, and more than a third of the regent spots will become vacant. President Trump appears to want to influence who is selected to change the institution’s trajectory. Trump’s biggest resistance may come from none other than Chief Justice John Roberts, who serves as the Chancellor.
A recent editorial in the Washington Post called on Roberts to preserve the institution’s independence. But Roberts, perhaps more than anyone else, should recognize that under our constitutional order, true independence is impossible. He has written leading Supreme Court decisions that repudiate the false notion that free-floating organizations can exist within the confines of the United States government. Even governors of the ultra-important Federal Reserve can be removed for cause. Federal entities that receive federal funds are accountable to the people and must be placed under some system of supervision.
Any attempt by the Smithsonian, and Roberts in particular, to fight back will only reinforce the institution’s perceived partisan nature. The path forward is not to wage an unwinnable war against the incumbent and future administrations. Rather, the Smithsonian should put its money where its mouth is: if it wants to be independent, it should truly be independent.
Many national museums are maintained by the state, such as the Louvre and the British Museum. But many other world-class institutions are independent of the government, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the American Museum of Natural History, the Art Institute of Chicago, and others. The Smithsonian should petition Congress for a formal separation to liberate itself from both federal funding and federal control.
This change would not spell doom. Recall that National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting warned that a cut in federal funding would signal their demise. Yet, the reports of NPR and PBS’s death have been greatly exaggerated. Indeed, these broadcasters can now be candid about their mission and appeal directly to their base for fundraising. If the Smithsonian were not subject to federal oversight, it could open whatever museums it wanted, launch any new exhibits, and avoid walking a tightrope between the left and the right. Let the DEI flag fly!
Or, if this pill would be too bitter to swallow, especially after nearly two centuries in this privileged status, Congress should involuntarily spin off the Smithsonian to a private entity. The new nonprofit could maintain its land and assets, and federal appropriations would wind down over time. Current government officials would step down from the board. Perhaps retired Justice Stephen Breyer, who has expertise in architecture, could serve as interim Chancellor. Indeed, freeing the institution from federal control could lead to innovation. It might make sense to separate the nineteen museums and the national zoo into separate entities. Some donors might support the panda exhibit, and others might support exhibits about stamp collecting. There is no real reason that all these entities have to be subsumed by a unified sclerotic bureaucracy.
The Smithsonian Institution stands at an inflection point. The trust earned since the nineteenth century has been squandered away. If Chief Justice Roberts truly believes in the Smithsonian’s independence, his greatest act of selfless institutionalism would be to let go of his own position.
Josh Blackman is a contributing editor to Civitas Outlook, holds the Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston, and is an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
