PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [D-FL-24] · D–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 24, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10475 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10475 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10475 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10475 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-16 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The bill would protect museums and cultural institutions with federal support from executive control of their exhibits and from funding cuts based on exhibit subjects. It would give the National Museum of African American History and Culture additional independence protections and give its Council authority to sue over interference. It would also authorize annual funding for that museum, subject to appropriations. These are proposed changes; the supplied history records introduction and committee referrals.
No executive order, presidential directive, or other action of the executive branch shall have force or effect to— (1) restrict, limit, or prohibit any Institution from researching, developing, or presenting exhibits and programs; (2) direct the content of exhibits or educational programming of any Institution;
Federal funds may not be denied, reduced, or conditioned to any Institution on the basis of the subject matter of exhibits or programming with respect to any such Institution.
The NMAAHC Council, acting through a majority vote of its members, is hereby granted express statutory standing to bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Smithsonian Institution for the National Museum of African American History and Culture the following amounts for fiscal year 2026 and each fiscal year thereafter:
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-24T15:48:19Z. 2026-09-16: Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2026-09-16: Introduced in House
Division A would cover the Smithsonian and any museum, cultural center, or heritage institution receiving federal funding, recognition, or partnership support. Its protections would extend to research, education, cultural preservation, and heritage programs as well as exhibitions.
The term Institution means the Smithsonian Institution or any museum, cultural center, or heritage institution that receives Federal funding, Federal recognition, or Federal partnership support.
The term exhibit or program means any research, exhibition, museum, educational initiative, cultural preservation project, or heritage program undertaken by an Institution.
Section 104 would make executive orders, presidential directives, and other executive actions ineffective if they restrict covered research or programming, dictate exhibit or educational content, or impose political or ideological conditions on federal appropriations.
No executive order, presidential directive, or other action of the executive branch shall have force or effect to— (1) restrict, limit, or prohibit any Institution from researching, developing, or presenting exhibits and programs; (2) direct the content of exhibits or educational programming of any Institution; or (3) condition Federal appropriations on adherence to political or ideological requirements with respect to any Institution.
Exhibit and program decisions would belong exclusively to the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, subject to Division B's museum-specific rules, or to other institutions' governing bodies working with professional staff and following their charters and missions.
Any decision with respect to the content of exhibits and programs of any Institution shall rest exclusively with— (1) in the case of the Smithsonian Institution, the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, subject to division B of this Act with respect to the National Museum of African American History and Culture; and (2) in the case of any other Institution, the governing bodies of such Institution, in collaboration with the professional staff of the Institution and consistent with the founding charter and mission of the Institution.
The Smithsonian's Board of Regents would have to adopt written policies against retaliation, coercion, or interference based on museum professionals' historical, scientific, or curatorial work, with internal procedures for reporting and addressing violations.
The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution shall adopt and implement written policies that— (1) prohibit retaliation, coercion, or interference against any museum director, scholar, curator, archivist, or researcher based on the substance of historical, scientific, or curatorial work; and (2) establish internal procedures for reporting and addressing violations of this subsection.
Section 105 would declare that covered institutions have a right and responsibility to present factual, evidence-based, inclusive history. It would affirm their ability to address inequality, underrepresented groups, art and science, and contemporary challenges to liberty, equality, and justice consistent with their missions.
It is the policy of the United States that the Smithsonian Institution and other Federally supported cultural Institutions have the right and responsibility to present history that is factual, evidence-based, and inclusive of the diverse experiences and contributions of all people in the United States.
Congress affirms that Federally supported Institutions may research, curate, and present exhibitions addressing— (1) the history of racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of structural inequality; (2) the contributions of African Americans, women, Indigenous peoples, immigrants, and other historically underrepresented groups; (3) the intersections of art, science, culture, and democracy; and (4) contemporary challenges to liberty, equality, and justice, consistent with each Institution's mission.
Section 106 would prohibit denying, reducing, or conditioning federal funds based on exhibit or program subjects. It would also prohibit the Office of Management and Budget from withholding, restricting, redirecting, or holding back appropriated funds based on exhibit content or curatorial independence. It would authorize unspecified amounts for Division A, without itself providing that money.
Federal funds may not be denied, reduced, or conditioned to any Institution on the basis of the subject matter of exhibits or programming with respect to any such Institution.
The Office of Management and Budget shall have no authority to withhold, restrict, reprogram, or impound Federal funds appropriated by Congress for any Institution on the basis of exhibit content or curatorial independence with respect to any such Institution.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this division and to support the independence and operations of Federally supported cultural Institutions.
Institutions and their employees, contractors, officers, or advisory bodies subjected to prohibited retaliation, coercion, or interference could sue in federal district court in Washington, D.C. They could seek a declaration of their rights, orders stopping unlawful conduct, orders compelling a required duty, or other appropriate relief.
Any Institution, or any employee, contractor, officer, or advisory body of an Institution, subjected to retaliation, coercion, or interference for protected scholarly, curatorial, or educational activity in violation of this division may bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to seek— (1) declaratory relief; (2) injunctive relief, including preliminary injunctive relief; (3) mandamus; or (4) such other relief as the court deems appropriate.
In a Division A lawsuit, a credible showing that executive action threatens an institution's content, programming, collections, or operations would create a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm: the court would presume harm that cannot adequately be repaired later, unless that presumption is overcome.
In any action brought under subsection (a), a credible showing that an executive action threatens the content, programming, collections, or operations of an Institution shall create a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm.
Section 107 would extend the federal whistleblower protections in chapter 23 of title 5 to covered museum directors, curators, archivists, researchers, and advisory council members who report Division A violations to Congress or an inspector general.
Federal whistleblower protections under chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, are hereby extended to museum directors, curators, archivists, researchers, and advisory council members of any Institution who report violations of this division to Congress or any Inspector General.
The Smithsonian inspector general would annually audit attempts to improperly influence or restrict Smithsonian content, programming, or operations and report to both chambers' Appropriations and Judiciary Committees. Federal officers or employees found by the inspector general or a court of competent jurisdiction to have knowingly directed, required, or prohibited exhibition content, educational programming, or curatorial decisions in violation of Division A would face administrative discipline, potentially including removal, consistent with federal employment law.
The Inspector General of the Smithsonian Institution shall conduct an annual audit of any attempts to improperly influence or restrict the content, programming, or operations of any Smithsonian Institution unit and shall transmit the results of each audit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate and the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Any Federal officer or employee found by the Inspector General or a court of competent jurisdiction to have knowingly directed, required, or prohibited the content of exhibitions, educational programming, or curatorial decisions in violation of this division shall be subject to administrative discipline, up to and including removal, consistent with Federal employment law.
Division A would not authorize censorship, prevent institutions from consulting scholars and communities, or limit congressional oversight of appropriations or governing boards' duties to manage institutions responsibly.
Nothing in this division may be construed to— (1) authorize censorship of the Smithsonian Institution, African American museums, or other cultural Institutions; (2) prevent Institutions from developing or curating exhibits in consultation with scholars, communities, and stakeholders; or (3) limit Congressional oversight of appropriations or the fiduciary responsibilities of governing boards.
Section 203 would designate the National Museum of African American History and Culture as the country's primary national institution for collecting, researching, interpreting, and teaching African American history. It would supplement the museum's existing statute; conflicts with that statute, including later amendments, would be resolved in favor of the provision most protective of the museum's independence and its Council's authority to safeguard the mission.
The National Museum of African American History and Culture is hereby designated the primary national institution of the United States for— (1) collecting, preserving, and interpreting artifacts and archival materials documenting the African American experience across all periods of American history; (2) conducting and disseminating research and scholarship on African American history, culture, art, and contributions to the United States; (3) educating the public through exhibitions, programming, digital content, and community outreach that present African American history as central to the national narrative; and (4) promoting accurate, comprehensive, and evidence-based historical understanding of the role of African Americans in building, defending, and advancing the United States.
This section supplements and does not supersede the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. 80r et seq.). In any conflict between this division and any provision of such Act, including as subsequently amended, the provision most protective of the NMAAHC’s independence and the Council’s mission fiduciary authority shall control.
Section 204 would describe a two-level governing structure: the Board of Regents would retain institution-wide legal, financial, and administrative oversight, while the museum's Council would hold authority over interpretation, scholarship, collections, programming, and selection and evaluation of the director. The Council would be designated a “mission fiduciary,” charged with safeguarding historical accuracy and scholarly integrity, ensuring programming reflects African American leadership and community accountability, reporting interference to Congress, and taking lawful protective action. The supplied text does not independently establish how these provisions compare with the Council's existing authority.
the Board of Regents retains institutional authority, including legal, financial, and administrative oversight of the Smithsonian Institution as a whole; and (2) the NMAAHC Council holds subject matter authority over the museum’s interpretive, cultural, and scholarly direction, including collections, exhibitions, educational programming, curatorial frameworks, and the selection and evaluation of the museum’s director
The NMAAHC Council is hereby designated a mission fiduciary of the United States with respect to the congressionally mandated purposes of the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. 80r et seq.).
the Council shall— (A) safeguard the historical accuracy, scholarly rigor, and interpretive integrity of NMAAHC exhibitions, collections, and educational programs; (B) ensure that the NMAAHC’s programming reflects African American leadership and community accountability consistent with the congressional mandate; (C) monitor and report to Congress any attempt—internal or external—to improperly influence, restrict, alter, or direct the content, collections, or programs of the NMAAHC; and (D) take such lawful action as is necessary and appropriate to protect the NMAAHC’s independence, including initiating civil enforcement proceedings under subsection (c).
By majority vote, the museum's Council could sue federal officers, agencies, or other federal entities in federal district court in Washington, D.C., over unlawful content control, content-based funding restrictions, retaliation for protected scholarly or curatorial activity, or other interference with its statutory mission duties.
The NMAAHC Council, acting through a majority vote of its members, is hereby granted express statutory standing to bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against any Federal officer, agency, or instrumentality that— (1) directs, requires, or prohibits the content of NMAAHC exhibitions, educational programming, curatorial decisions, or research findings in violation of this Act or the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. 80r et seq.); (2) withholds, restricts, impounds, or conditions Federal appropriations for the NMAAHC based on exhibit content or curatorial decisions, in violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 681 et seq.) or this Act; (3) retaliates against NMAAHC directors, scholars, curators, archivists, researchers, or Council members for the substance of protected scholarly or curatorial activity; or (4) otherwise frustrates the Council’s mission fiduciary duties as established by the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. 80r et seq.) or this Act.
The bill would declare that federal interference with the Council's statutory mission duties constitutes a specific injury to the Council for constitutional standing—the requirement that a plaintiff have a sufficient personal stake to sue. This is the bill's proposed legal rule, not an established court ruling on standing.
For purposes of establishing standing under Article III of the Constitution, the frustration of the Council’s mission fiduciary duties under the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. 80r et seq.) or this Act by any Federal officer or agency shall constitute a concrete and particularized injury in fact to the Council, distinct from the generalized interests of the public in accurate historical preservation.
In Council lawsuits, courts could declare federal action unlawful, order withheld appropriations or altered exhibits restored, stop executive interference, or require officials to perform legal duties. Courts could also award attorney fees and costs under the cited Equal Access to Justice Act and other appropriate nonmonetary relief.
the Court may award— (1) declaratory relief establishing the unlawfulness of the challenged Federal action; (2) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including orders requiring the restoration of withheld appropriations, the reinstatement of altered or removed exhibition content, or the cessation of executive interference; (3) mandamus directing a Federal officer to perform a duty owed under this Act or the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. 80r et seq.); (4) attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (5 U.S.C. 504; 28 U.S.C. 2412); and (5) such other equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.
A Council showing that federal action threatens the museum's integrity, content, collections, programming, or funding would create a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm. Courts weighing the competing harms would have to recognize threatened loss of historically documented content as a public injury that money cannot adequately remedy.
a showing by the Council that Federal action threatens the integrity, content, collections, programming, or funding of the NMAAHC shall create a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm, and the Court shall weigh the balance of harms with full recognition that threatened loss of historically documented content represents injury to the public interest that cannot be adequately remedied by money damages.
Section 204 would preserve other federal claims available to museum employees, donors, contractors, and organizational partners. It would also preserve the Board of Regents' authority and make the Council's ability to sue additional to the Board's ability to bring claims.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the rights of any employee, donor, contractor, or organizational partner of the NMAAHC to pursue claims available under any other provision of Federal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to diminish the authority of the Board of Regents under the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. 80r et seq.) or any other provision of law. The Council’s standing under this section is supplementary to, and not in substitution for, any authority of the Board of Regents to bring claims on behalf of the Smithsonian Institution.
Section 205 would provide that the museum retains exclusive control over scholarship, curation, research, and exhibitions notwithstanding other laws, and prohibit federal officers and employees from directing their content. Federal oversight could reach editorial, curatorial, or scholarly judgments only when necessary to address federal-law violations unrelated to content.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the NMAAHC shall retain exclusive authority over its scholarly, curatorial, research, and exhibition activities. No officer or employee of the United States shall direct, require, or prohibit the content of NMAAHC exhibitions, educational programming, curatorial decisions, or research findings.
Federal oversight of the NMAAHC shall not extend to editorial, curatorial, or scholarly judgments, except where necessary to address violations of Federal law unrelated to content.
The Board of Regents would have to implement policies protecting museum directors, scholars, and curators; use museum and Smithsonian general funds as appropriate to defend against executive action violating the bill; and forward executive communications purporting to control museum content, programming, or appropriations to the Council within five business days of receipt.
The Board of Regents shall— (1) implement written policies, consistent with the Council’s mission fiduciary authority under section 204, safeguarding NMAAHC directors, scholars, and curators from retaliation, coercion, or interference based on the substance of historical or scientific work; (2) defend, from NMAAHC institutional resources and Smithsonian general funds as appropriate, against any executive action seeking to alter, restrict, or condition NMAAHC programming or appropriations in violation of this Act; and (3) transmit to the NMAAHC Council, within 5 business days of receipt, any communication from the executive branch that purports to direct, restrict, or condition NMAAHC content, programming, or appropriations.
Section 206 would require the Smithsonian to maintain and strengthen its work preserving, researching, and presenting African American history. It would prohibit federal officers and political appointees from restricting any Smithsonian unit's ability to display, interpret, or share historically documented information about African American history or another “protected historical narrative,” a term the supplied text does not define.
The Smithsonian Institution shall maintain and strengthen its commitment to the preservation, research, and presentation of African American history across all relevant museums, archives, and programs.
No Federal officer or political appointee may restrict, reduce, alter, remove, or impede the ability of the NMAAHC or any Smithsonian unit to display, interpret, or disseminate historically documented information concerning African American history or any other protected historical narrative.
If the Board of Regents, consulting the Council, determines that federal action imminently threatens the integrity of the museum's collections, exhibitions, or programming, the Smithsonian would have to coordinate with partner institutions to arrange temporary custody of at-risk collections, archive digital records, curatorial materials, and educational content with multiple partners, and document all retaliation claims and coordinate a legal response. Partners could include historically Black colleges and universities, Association of African American Museums members, other cultural institutions, and, where appropriate for archiving, international partners.
In the event that the Board of Regents, in consultation with the Council, determines that Federal action poses an imminent threat to the integrity of NMAAHC collections, exhibitions, or programming, the Smithsonian shall— (1) coordinate with partner institutions, including historically Black colleges and universities, Association of African American Museums members, and other cultural institutions, to arrange temporary custody of at-risk collections; (2) archive digital records, curatorial materials, and educational content with multiple partner institutions and, where appropriate, international partners; and (3) document all retaliation claims and coordinate legal response with the NMAAHC Council consistent with section 204.
The Smithsonian Secretary and museum Council would each report annually to both chambers' Appropriations and Judiciary Committees. The Secretary would report interference attempts, responses, and litigation; the Council would report its mission duties, executive threats to those duties, and Council lawsuits.
The Secretary of the Smithsonian shall submit an annual report to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate that describes— (1) any attempt, internal or external, to improperly influence or restrict NMAAHC content, programming, collections, or appropriations during the preceding year; (2) actions taken by the Board of Regents, the NMAAHC Council, or the Smithsonian legal staff to address any such attempts; and (3) the status of any litigation brought by or on behalf of the NMAAHC or the Council under this Act.
The NMAAHC Council shall submit an annual report to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate that describes— (1) the Council’s exercise of its mission fiduciary duties during the preceding year; (2) any instances in which the Council determined that executive action frustrated or threatened to frustrate its mission fiduciary obligations; and (3) any civil actions initiated or pending under section 204(c).
Section 208 would authorize $90 million for the museum for fiscal year 2026 and each subsequent fiscal year: $40 million for collections, $15 million for digitization and public access, $10 million for research, $12 million for education and community engagement, $8 million for security and preservation, and $5 million for independence protections. This would authorize future appropriations, not itself supply the funds.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Smithsonian Institution for the National Museum of African American History and Culture the following amounts for fiscal year 2026 and each fiscal year thereafter: (1) $40,000,000 for collections expansion, including new acquisitions, conservation, and oral history programs; (2) $15,000,000 for digitization and public access, including scanning, metadata development, and digital exhibitions; (3) $10,000,000 for research and scholarship, including fellowships and academic collaborations; (4) $12,000,000 for education and community engagement, including K–12 programs and traveling exhibitions; (5) $8,000,000 for security and preservation, including environmental controls and storage upgrades; and (6) $5,000,000 for independence protections, including legal staff, reporting systems, and training.
Section 301 would preserve the remaining provisions of either substantive division if a provision or its application were invalidated. Invalidating a provision of one division would not invalidate the other division.
If any provision of division A of this Act, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, is held unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the remainder of division A shall not be affected.
If any provision of division B of this Act, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, is held unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the remainder of division B shall not be affected.
A judicial determination that any provision of division A is invalid shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any provision of division B, and vice versa.
The bill would take effect on its enactment date.
This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 303 would preserve existing civil-rights and other listed federal remedies and add the bill's remedies to those already available. Plaintiffs suing under section 107 or section 204(c) would not have to finish administrative complaint procedures before going to court.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish, preempt, or supersede any right or remedy available under— (1) title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.); (2) sections 1981, 1982, 1985, and 1986 of title 42, United States Code; (3) the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 81 et seq.); (4) the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 706); or (5) any other provision of Federal law protecting civil rights, curatorial independence, or the separation of powers.
The rights, remedies, and standing established by this Act are supplementary to and cumulative with any rights, remedies, or standing available under existing law. A plaintiff need not exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a civil action under division A, section 107, or division B, section 204(c).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 24, 2026, records introduction in the House on September 16, 2026, and referral that day to the House Administration and Natural Resources Committees for provisions within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-24T15:48:19Z. 2026-09-16: Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2026-09-16: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-16. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish attachment history or the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text under the requested definition. Program funding authorizations alone do not establish earmarks. This conclusion is limited to this version; absent disclosure and accompanying materials prevent a definitive determination of formal earmark status.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The findings identify narrow, institution-specific legal protections related to the bill's main policy. Classification warrants scrutiny but is not a judgment about their merits.
The National Museum of African American History and Culture and its Council would receive a special rule resolving conflicts with the museum's founding statute, including later amendments, in favor of whichever provision best protects museum independence and Council mission authority. This institution-specific rule serves the bill's independence protections; the underlying statute is not supplied for comparison.
This section supplements and does not supersede the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. 80r et seq.). In any conflict between this division and any provision of such Act, including as subsequently amended, the provision most protective of the NMAAHC’s independence and the Council’s mission fiduciary authority shall control.
The museum would receive an express, institution-specific restriction on federal oversight of editorial, curatorial, and scholarly judgments, with an exception for addressing federal-law violations unrelated to content. Its exclusive authority would apply notwithstanding other law. This special oversight restriction directly supports the bill's curatorial-independence policy.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the NMAAHC shall retain exclusive authority over its scholarly, curatorial, research, and exhibition activities.
Federal oversight of the NMAAHC shall not extend to editorial, curatorial, or scholarly judgments, except where necessary to address violations of Federal law unrelated to content.
The NMAAHC Council would receive a special, majority-vote right to sue federal officers, agencies, or instrumentalities over specified content interference, funding restrictions, retaliation, or frustration of its mission duties. The bill would also declare frustration of those duties by a federal officer or agency a concrete and particularized injury for constitutional standing. These Council-specific enforcement rules support the museum's independence; they are proposed rules and do not establish that a court would accept standing in a particular case.
The NMAAHC Council, acting through a majority vote of its members, is hereby granted express statutory standing to bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against any Federal officer, agency, or instrumentality that— (1) directs, requires, or prohibits the content of NMAAHC exhibitions, educational programming, curatorial decisions, or research findings in violation of this Act or the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. 80r et seq.); (2) withholds, restricts, impounds, or conditions Federal appropriations for the NMAAHC based on exhibit content or curatorial decisions, in violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 681 et seq.) or this Act; (3) retaliates against NMAAHC directors, scholars, curators, archivists, researchers, or Council members for the substance of protected scholarly or curatorial activity; or (4) otherwise frustrates the Council’s mission fiduciary duties as established by the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. 80r et seq.) or this Act.
For purposes of establishing standing under Article III of the Constitution, the frustration of the Council’s mission fiduciary duties under the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. 80r et seq.) or this Act by any Federal officer or agency shall constitute a concrete and particularized injury in fact to the Council, distinct from the generalized interests of the public in accurate historical preservation.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 24, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI