Despite nearly 180 years of Smithsonian history, the United States still does not have a national museum dedicated to women’s history. Congress approved the creation of the American Women’s History Museum (AWHM) in 2021 alongside the National Museum of the American Latino. Yet progress towards building the museum has stalled. Most recently, the House of Representatives rejected legislation that would have accelerated the selection of a site on the National Mall.
The bi-partisan coalition that previously supported the museum, and was backed by President Trump, fractured last month over amendments added to the bill. The changes centered on the inclusion of trans-women and the President’s undue influence over the museum.
The amended version of H.R. 1329 defined the museum’s mission as preserving and presenting the history and achievements of “biological women” and prohibited the museum from depicting “biological males” as female.
These provisions were not included in Representative Nicole Malliotakis’ (R-NY-11) original bill. After the bill failed in a narrow 216 to 204 vote, six Republicans joined Democrats in opposing it. Several representatives have called for a return to the bill’s original language.
Democrats argued that the amendments transformed a broadly supported measure into a partisan fight. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM-3), chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus and an original co-sponsor of the bill, said on the House floor “it was a simple bill — you kind of ruined it with your trans obsession and your culture wars.” Rep. Malliotakis (R-NY-11) countered that isolating the museum’s focus to “biological women” should not have been the deal breaker in the 20 year effort to establish the Museum.
Democrats expressed additional concerns over changes in language that would grant the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission final approval power over the design of the Museum. These two groups’ membership is almost entirely made up of Trump-loyalists.
Supporters of the bill dismissed those concerns. However, opponents pointed to previous disputes involving the content of Smithsonian exhibits, national parks, and other federal institutions as reasons to remain cautious.
At its core, the debate is about more than a building on the National Mall. It is about how history is told, whose stories are preserved, and whether future generations will encounter a full and accurate account of the people who helped shape the country.
Given the extensive history of gender inequality in this country, denying the lived realities of American women and gender minorities is a serious concern. If we minimize the harm caused to others, in an attempt to assuage our national conscience, we avoid responsibility for our actions and diminish our capacity for future change.
Beyond this, we deprive a generation of Americans from learning about the achievements and contributions of those who thrived in spite of adversity. We need these lessons in resilience to foster hope for a brighter tomorrow, so that we might live up to the potential of those who came before us.