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.
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.”
>>> The Smithsonian’s New Latino Exhibit Is Missing a Huge Piece of the Story
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.
>>> Time To “Clean House” at the America-Subverting Smithsonian
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.”
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.
This piece originally appeared in the Washington Examiner
Facts Only
* The Smithsonian Institution is considering moving the National Museum of the American Latino into the Arts and Industries Building (AIB).
* The AIB is located on the National Mall adjacent to the Smithsonian Castle.
* The National Museum of the American Latino was authorized by a 2020 act included in a 2021 omnibus bill.
* The museum currently receives approximately $10.39 million annually through the Interior appropriations bill.
* The House Appropriations Committee defunded the museum for several weeks in 2023.
* The Smithsonian Board of Regents has the statutory authority to choose the museum site.
* Statutory requirements for site selection include consultation with the National Capital Planning Commission, the National Park Service, and the Commission of Fine Arts.
* Estimated costs for retrofitting the AIB are nearly $1 billion, with $50 million in annual operating expenses.
* The ¡Presente! exhibition opened in 2022.
* Current Smithsonian leadership includes Secretary Lonnie Bunch III and National Museum of American History director Anthea Hartig.
Executive Summary
The Smithsonian Institution is considering relocating the National Museum of the American Latino into the Arts and Industries Building (AIB) on the National Mall. Because the Smithsonian already owns the AIB, this move would avoid the need for new congressional legislation and subsequent legislative debate. This proposal follows a period of friction where museum leadership previously sought a custom-built facility reflecting Hispanic architectural styles, while current political pressures from the Trump administration and Congress have intensified regarding the institution's ideological direction.
The situation is marked by significant disagreement over the museum's purpose and cost. Critics argue the museum serves as a platform for radical activism and leftist political agendas, citing the ¡Presente! exhibition as evidence of anti-American bias. Proponents of the museum's mission operate under an authorizing statute that frames the Latino legacy as deeply rooted in American democracy and freedom. Estimates suggest retrofitting the AIB would cost approximately $1 billion, with annual operating costs of $50 million.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is a warning against the use of administrative loopholes to bypass legislative oversight for a high-cost project that may deviate from its statutory mandate. It posits that an institution funded by taxpayers should remain a neutral steward of history rather than a vehicle for contemporary political activism.
The narrative relies heavily on a pattern of framing administrative actions as "stealth" or "covert" to evoke a sense of betrayal of public trust. By characterizing the museum as an "incubator of grievances" and "hothouse for radical activism," the argument shifts from a debate over architecture and budgeting to a moral conflict over national identity.
Patterns detected: ARC-0021 Emotional exploitation (Moral Panic)
The driving paradigm is one of cultural conflict, echoing the "culture war" struggle over the control of national narratives in public spaces. The unstated assumption is that "Latino" is a synthetic category rather than a lived identity, and that any move toward specialized architecture or inclusive history is an inherent slide toward Marxism.
The implications involve a tension between the desire for representation in national monuments and the demand for ideological neutrality. If the museum is de-authorized or its leadership purged, it signals a shift toward a centralized, government-curated version of history that prioritizes stability over critical reflection.
Bridge Questions:
1. How does the definition of "neutrality" in a museum differ from "bias" when presenting the history of marginalized groups?
2. What objective metrics can determine if a museum is adhering to its authorizing legislation versus pursuing a political agenda?
3. If the AIB is used, does the lack of specialized architecture diminish the museum's educational value?
Counterstrike Scan: A coordinated influence campaign would use "leak" framing to suggest a secret coup within a federal agency, pairing high-cost figures ($1 billion) with accusations of "anti-Americanism" to trigger immediate funding freezes. This content aligns structurally with that playbook.
Sentinel — Human
This piece reads like high-level, opinion-driven political commentary that synthesizes factual claims about museum politics with critical interpretation of institutional motivations.