The Smithsonian Institution is trying to use a loophole to sneak in a building for a yet-to-be-built controversial museum that remains homeless: the National Museum of the American Latino. It is an act of desperation by a museum complex beset with accusations of bias.
The building, according to several sources, is the Arts and Industries Building, on the National Mall right next to the Smithsonian’s iconic “Castle,” which houses the institution’s administrative offices.
Recommended Stories
The Smithsonian already owns the AIB, which is why giving it to the Latino museum would avert the need for legislation, and thus a debate in Congress.
So pressed is the Smithsonian to jam in this decision that it is considering calling an emergency, unscheduled meeting of its Board of Regents to rubber-stamp the AIB decision.
There’s some history here, as the Latino museum’s own leadership has already snubbed the AIB.
The 2020 act authorizing the museum already included the AIB among the sites for consideration by the museum leaders, along with other places. The other sites are owned by the National Park Service, however, so transferring ownership would require legislation.
So why did the Latino museum’s leaders not accept the AIB immediately? Apparently because they wanted to have their own property developed in a supposedly Hispanic style, just as the Indian and African American museums had their buildings designed in a style that suited their leaders.
There is no “Latino architecture,” of course, just as there is no “Latino music” or “Latino cuisine.” It’s a synthetic, government category created by the Office of Management and Budget in 1977 and slapped on the decennial census for the first time in 1980. The Indian museum faced the same problem, so it sent its architects to consult with “Native American tribes from all over North and South America to determine what elements were essential for the museum.”
But choosing brutalist architecture from Mexico is a lower priority now. With the leadership of the Smithsonian coming under fierce criticism from the Trump administration and Congress for hijacking an institution that the public entrusted to them, and exploiting it to carry out a political agenda — to bring about societal change — the AIB may be the only option.
Legislative action to pass a bill authorizing land to build this museum has gone nowhere, and support for the Smithsonian leadership is tanking with many Republicans in Congress, as the institution and its leadership, particularly Secretary Lonnie Bunch III and the director of the National Museum of American History, Anthea Hartig, come under the spotlight.
Last month, the White House issued a report recounting in detail how the American history museum, one of the Smithsonian’s signature destinations, engages in leftist activism in everything from gender and racial theories to illegal immigration. That report followed and preceded separate executive orders demanding that the Smithsonian change course.
There were also two congressional hearings, by the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency and the House Committee on Administration, at which I testified.
Even left-wing commentators and publications have begun to question whether the Smithsonian, the world’s largest museum complex, serves the public by skewing its exhibits toward the Left.
As for the Latino museum, it has made it crystal clear that if Congress ever allows it to come into being, it too will be a hothouse for radical activism. It’s already proven to be so contentious that the House Appropriations Committee defunded it for a few weeks in 2023.
It was authorized by Congress because the enabling act was tucked into the vast fiscal 2021 omnibus bill signed in the last month of President Donald Trump’s first term. Since then, it has received roughly $10.39 million annually through the Interior appropriations bill.
And just as the Latino museum was authorized covertly, literally in the middle of the night, the Smithsonian leadership now wants to give it new digs by stealth.
How much would this cost the hard-put taxpayer? Retrofitting the AIB somehow will cost almost $1 billion, and about $50 million a year to operate, according to estimates that I have received.
And for what? This report the Heritage Foundation just published, showing entries from the ¡Presente! exhibition which opened in 2022 and is still online, reveals exactly how the Latino museum would be nothing but an incubator of grievances if Congress allows it to be built.
From an LGBT agenda to open borders and Marxist messaging, and an unrelenting anti-American bias, the Latino museum would refute and violate the spirit and letter of its authorizing legislation, which begins:
“The United States is a symbol of democracy, freedom, and economic opportunity around the world, and the legacy of Latinos is deeply rooted in the very fabric of the history, democracy, freedom, and economic opportunity of the United States.”
HISTORY WITH A WARNING LABEL: TRUMP IS RIGHT ABOUT WHO TELLS AMERICA’S STORY
That statute gives the Board of Regents the ultimate authority to choose a site for the museum, and it’s not clear how the regents would approve the transfer. However, the statute also requires that they consult a number of officials, including the chair of the National Capital Planning Commission, the director of the National Park Service, the chair of the Commission of Fine Arts, and other Trump appointees.
Not allowing Bunch and his acolytes to hand the AIB to the Latino museum would be a first step to de-authorizing the museum and halting its work. The next step, obviously, is firing Bunch, Hartig, and the other leaders.