When the federal government shuts down, national parks close, passport offices go dark, and the museums of the Smithsonian Institution fall silent.
The doors of the Smithsonian are shut alongside federal agencies, staff are furloughed, and the public is turned away. This occurs every time Washington grinds to a halt.
Yet despite these procedures, the Smithsonian insists, repeatedly and forcefully, that it is not a government agency. This contradiction deserves scrutiny.
The Smithsonian was created by an act of Congress to be an instrument of public trust with a Board of Regents that includes the vice president, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, and members of Congress. Occupying federal land along the National Mall, it operates on substantial taxpayer funding and carries the prestige of federal affiliation both domestically and overseas.
Yet when questions arise about ideological content, displays of bias, or lack of transparency, the Smithsonian leadership invokes its self-claimed independence. They argue that it is exempt from the same oversight and accountability that allows for public scrutiny across other federally supported institutions.
So, which of these facts is true?
If the Smithsonian is closed every time the federal government shuts down, is it truly operating as a private institution? If it relies on congressional appropriations and federal authority, is it functioning as a public trust? If it claims immunity from transparency laws, political accountability, and public debate, is it acting as a private fiefdom?
These paradoxes should not be enabled by taxpayers.
The Smithsonian has long resisted mechanisms of federal accountability. This has occurred through meaningful oversight of exhibit content and ideological framing, as well as times when citizens, scholars, or lawmakers have raised concerns that are met with deflection due to the institution’s insistence on political independence. This has all transpired while the Smithsonian has reaped the financial benefits of the same political structures it shuns when faced with accountability.
The lack of liability should not be sacrificed for the sake of claimed independence.
Private museums are subject to market forces, including donors and boards that shape their direction. Public institutions have an even higher obligation to the very people who fund them and the diverse viewpoints their taxpayer base represents. The Smithsonian has managed to leverage itself into a position filled with control — devoid of consequences, claiming to be public for the benefits but private to evade accountability.
As millions of students pass through the Smithsonian museums each year on school trips, exhibits increasingly present claims that are contested by the public in art galleries, history exhibits, and science halls.
Congress must define, explicitly and legislatively, where the Smithsonian stands. Is it a public trust accountable to the American people and subject to the appropriate transparency and oversight, or is it a private institution that no longer should operate as an extension of federal authority?
If the Smithsonian wishes to claim independence, it should be prepared to relinquish the privileges of its federal affiliation. If it wishes to retain taxpayer funding and federal prestige, it must accept its accountability to the American people and declare itself a federal institution.
In a republic, institutions funded by the people must ultimately answer to the people. Anything less erodes public trust, not only in the Smithsonian, but in the cultural institutions that shape how Americans understand their past, navigate their present, and foresee their future.
Dylan Coombs is a spokesman at Americans for Museums.
