Replacing departing Smithsonian Institution trustees is not typically the stuff of intrigue.
Nominated by the Smithsonian’s board, new trustees have in past years been confirmed by Congress with nary a whisper of partisan rancor.
But in a turn of events that attests to a Smithsonian under siege from the White House, the names of several recent nominees to the board have not even made it to Congress.
And no one has publicly complained.
Not the embattled Smithsonian director Lonnie G. Bunch III, who is hanging on to a bare majority of support on the board, nor other trustees. Not the chief justice of the United States, John G. Roberts Jr., who serves as chancellor of the institution and is charged with overseeing its administrative practices. And not Congress, which generally would have received — and rubber-stamped — the nominees by now.
“The fact that we’re even having this conversation about the Board of Regents suggests that we are in this really unique historical moment,” said Samuel J. Redman, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who has written about the Smithsonian. “There has been a pro forma aspect to the work of the Board of Regents, and big political, ideological issues have not played out the way they are now.”
This unusual holding pattern, and the silence surrounding it, appears to be an outgrowth of the shadow war being fought for control of the Smithsonian.
Governing the Smithsonian Institution is a 17-member Board of Regents, which includes the vice president, the chief justice, three members of Congress appointed by the House and three senators appointed by that body. The board nominates another nine members, who, after congressional confirmation, serve no more than two consecutive six-year terms.
The board, which has long operated independently of the executive branch, oversees the Smithsonian’s strategy, policy, finances, mission and governance.
When trustee terms expire, the Board of Regents nominates new candidates, whose names are then forwarded to Congress. There have been three openings on the board since April, and by October, the terms of three more trustees will have expired.
But the names proposed by the board, which have not been publicly disclosed, have yet to make their way to Congress, and without clear explanation. Two people with knowledge of the process, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private decision-making, said Vice President JD Vance had delayed action on the names because President Trump hoped to substitute more like-minded candidates.
Neither the White House nor Mr. Vance responded to requests for comment. Chief Justice Roberts declined to comment.
A spokeswoman for the Smithsonian, which oversees 21 museums and the National Zoo, said in a statement to The New York Times: “The Smithsonian and Board of Regents are constructively working with stakeholders across the government on a variety of matters, including putting forward a slate of nominees for current and upcoming citizen vacancies on the Board of Regents.”
Since Mr. Trump signed an executive order in March 2025 criticizing the Smithsonian for what he claimed was an ideologically driven approach to the nation’s history, his administration has hammered away at the institution.
The White House has demanded a comprehensive review of the Smithsonian’s exhibitions and other materials to “assess tone, historical framing and alignment with American ideals,” and an administration report released on July 4 accused the Smithsonian of an “extreme political activism” that fails to adequately celebrate the country’s heritage.
Some conservatives have applauded that report. Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said on social media: “It’s time to clean house at the Smithsonian Institution. Hardworking Americans don’t want their taxpayer dollars dedicated to Marxist indoctrination.”
But many historians have expressed serious concern. “President Trump has exceeded his bounds just to score political points that he’s some kind of anti-woke warrior, and he’s denigrated the Smithsonian Institution,” the presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said in an interview. “There is not one serious academic historian that is going to say that the Smithsonian is somehow being anti-American in its presentation of history.”
Mr. Bunch, rather than force the issue and risk inviting a confrontation with the president, has remained quiet, perhaps calculating that the Smithsonian can continue to function without a full slate of trustees. The institution’s bylaws dictate that eight trustees are needed for a quorum.
Mr. Bunch’s approach conforms with the broader tack he has taken over the past year. Despite being repeatedly pushed and provoked by the White House — prompting predictions that he would quit or be forced out — he has pursued a strategy of nonengagement, restating the Smithsonian’s independence without throwing down the gauntlet.
Mr. Bunch did not respond to requests for an interview.
The specter of losing government funding has continued to hover over the Smithsonian, which receives about 62 percent of its annual $1 billion budget from federal sources. Mr. Trump’s executive order, which was titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” directed Mr. Vance to work with the White House Office of Management and Budget to “prohibit expenditure on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with federal law and policy.”
Time and again, Mr. Bunch has gambled that Mr. Trump’s focus will shift away from the Smithsonian, which indeed it has — to the Epstein files, the war in Iran and other matters.
Crucially, Mr. Bunch has managed to retain his support on the board, and he appears to have the backing needed to maintain control through at least 2029, when additional trustee terms will expire. Mr. Bunch will still have a majority of board support going into the midterm elections in November, when control of Congress will be in play.
All this would seem to leave the White House with two potential avenues of leverage — withdraw funding from the Smithsonian or simply disregard its traditional procedures and wrest control of the institution, as Mr. Trump has done with the Kennedy Center.
Congress maintained the Smithsonian’s federal funding after the president proposed cutting its budget by about 12 percent in the 2026 fiscal year. Once Congress authorizes funding for the Smithsonian, its disbursement is controlled by the Office of Management and Budget, which has announced that the money must be spent in line with the president’s agenda.
Some historians worry that Mr. Bunch will not be able to hold off a takeover by Mr. Trump before the president’s term ends in early 2029.
“He’s doing his best at navigating this diplomatically,” Mr. Redman said. “But what comes after that? What happens next with the leadership of the Smithsonian?”
The post As White House Leans on Smithsonian, Little Uproar Over Board Vacancies appeared first on New York Times.
