A directive from the Office of Management and Budget could force the Smithsonian Institution to change its spending plans to match President Donald Trump’s priorities — or risk not getting some of the money Congress appropriated for its operations.
An apportionment — documents that direct federal agencies on how to spend congressionally approved money — approved by OMB in May is aimed at compelling the Smithsonian to spend congressionally appropriated funding in a way that’s “consistent with the FY 2026 President’s Budget” in order to receive it. The president’s budget differed widely from what Congress ultimately chose to fund.
OMB also instructed the Smithsonian to submit a request “specifying each activity and the associated estimated federal obligation amount.”
Trump has repeatedly tried to reshape the Smithsonian, insisting its prior offerings were too “woke” and insufficiently patriotic. The May directive puts the Smithsonian in a major bind, creating hurdles to access congressional funding, experts said.
Trending
“The budget guys at the Smithsonian, it puts them in a ridiculous position,” a former Hill staffer and appropriations expert who would only talk on the condition of anonymity told NOTUS. “If they spend money that OMB tells them to spend, then they’re in violation of the Antideficiency Act, which dates back to the Civil War. It involves an agency or a person spending money that’s not been appropriated, and it has criminal fucking penalties, man.”
“And if they don’t spend money Congress told them to spend, then they’re in violation of the Impoundment Control Act, which does not have criminal penalties. But it’s a pretty good constitutional crisis.”
OMB did not respond to a request for comment.
Andrew Mosely, director of the Smithsonian’s office of Planning, Management and Budget, referred questions regarding the current fiscal year’s budget to the Smithsonian’s press office. The Smithsonian Institution did not respond to a request for comment.
Two federal laws help balance the relationship between OMB and Congress. The Impoundment Control Act allows the president to withhold or rescind congressionally appropriated funding. Recision would require congressional approval.
The Antideficiency Act prevents agencies from spending federal funds before Congress has appropriated them or using more than what lawmakers allocated. The penalties for defying the act would also apply to not following the OMB’s recent guidance, according to Cerin Lindgrensavage, counsel for Protect Democracy, an advocacy organization that tracks apportionments.
The language in the OMB footnote suggests that the administration could “potentially” provide the Smithsonian with less funding than what was included in the appropriations bill, Lindgrensavage told NOTUS.
“There are a lot of restrictions on how you can and cannot use federal funds that people who spend federal funds are responsible for making sure they obey,” Lindgrensavage said. “The thing that I think is problematic here is that this isn’t just the same old kind of footnote that says, ‘Hey, follow the rules.’
“This is a very different kind of footnote that says, ‘Hey, we want you to follow the president’s budget request — which is not law— in lieu of following the appropriations law, which is.”
Appropriations experts have called this footnote unusual, but they say that it tracks with how this administration’s OMB has tried to influence and restrict how agencies spend money.
Mark Harkins, a congressional expert who served more than a decade on the Hill, told NOTUS that OMB isn’t required to follow individual funding allotments for each museum that Congress laid out in its explanatory statement because they’re not specifically spelled out as a part of the law.
OMB has historically followed those allotments as a “gentleman’s agreement,” Harkins said. While Congress could put its expectations into law, doing so would leave agencies less flexibility with their budget.
“The hammer is that Congress comes back this year and says, ‘Well, if you’re not going to follow what we gave you as guidance, this year, we’re going to make that chart law,’” Harkins said. “So they could make it law, but that hamstrings the agency, because now you can’t move money between the different museums, if there’s something that comes up [like] if one floods.”
There are significant differences between the money approved for the Smithsonian museums and what Trump’s spending blueprint called for. For example, Congress in January passed nearly $1 million more in Smithsonian salaries and expense funding than what Trump’s budget called for.
Lawmakers also intended for the National Museum of the American Latino to receive more than $10 million and for the Anacostia Community Museum to get more than $3 million, according to a report by Congress explaining the legislation. Neither was allocated funding in the president’s budget.
Congress advised OMB to apportion millions more in funding for other Smithsonian institutions, like the Astrophysical Observatory, than the president requested.
The OMB has not fully apportioned the funding for the Smithsonian’s “main operating account,” a Hill staffer told NOTUS last week.
The staffer said the National Museum of the American Latino received full funding despite the president requesting no money for the museum. The staffer said they think it’s a stretch that the reference to the president’s budget will affect Smithsonian funding for the current fiscal year.
“OMB apportions funding,” the staffer told NOTUS in an email when asked about the footnote. “This is based on funding enacted into law. We view the reference to the President’s Budget as no longer relevant to this funding, and many see this as an overreach.”
The footnote is the latest attempt by the administration to put its imprint on the Smithsonian. Last year, the administration accused the institution of being influenced by “a divisive, race-centered ideology” and issued an executive order to prevent the museum from using federal funding on exhibits that focus on race.
In an effort to enforce the order, Trump officials required that Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch submit documentation for the institution’s exhibits as part of a “comprehensive internal review” process. The extensive process included reviewing exhibition catalogues, interviewing curators and reviewing employee manuals.
As a result of a slow response to the administration’s request, the administration threatened to withhold Smithsonian funding in December.
Author
