Federal Bill Creating Smithsonian Women’s Museum Scuttled Over Demand That It Honor Only “Biological” Females

Legislation to advance the construction of the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum in Washington, DC, failed in the House on May 21 after Democrats rejected amendments added by Republicans. The bill, introduced by Republican Representative Nicole Malliotakis, was defeated 216-204, with six Republicans joining Democrats in opposition. Key changes included language specifying the museum would honor only “biological women” and explicitly barring the depiction of any “biological male as a female,” which critics said would exclude transgender women. Other provisions would have given President Donald Trump unilateral authority to choose an alternative site for the museum, originally planned for the National Mall, and granted approval power over design and construction to commissions controlled by Trump appointees.

In Washington, the Women's Museum will not see the light of day

À Washington, le Musée des femmes ne verra pas le jour

The U.S. House of Representatives has rejected a bill to establish the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., after a bipartisan consensus collapsed. The original bill, introduced by Republican Representative Nicole Malliotakis in February 2025, had over 230 co-sponsors and aimed to allocate a site opposite the National Museum of African American History and Culture. However, an amendment by Representative Mary Miller redefined the museum's mission as dedicated to "biological women," explicitly excluding transgender women, and removed references to diversity. The committee approved the amendment along party lines (7-4), leading to the bill's failure to secure the necessary votes.

Is Museum Wall Text the Next Political Battleground?

The Smithsonian Institution has altered or removed interpretive wall text that accompanies artworks on display, according to a New York Times report. Critics argue these changes amount to self-censorship, suggesting the institution is bowing to political pressure by softening or eliminating contextual language that could be seen as controversial.