The Smithsonian’s leader, Lonnie Bunch III, has pushed a sweeping DEAI agenda while earning millions in pay and benefits from 2020 to 2024, and that mix of ideology and taxpayer-supported money is drawing sharp questions about priorities, transparency and accountability.
Lonnie Bunch III serves as secretary of the Smithsonian and oversees a sprawling operation that includes museums, libraries, research centers and the National Zoo. During his time in charge the institution has shifted toward centering diversity, equity, accessibility and inclusion as an explicit institutional priority, even as federal dollars still cover a large share of the budget. The compensation figures and the cultural turn together have put the institution squarely in the crosshairs of taxpayers and lawmakers who want clearer answers.
Bunch has been forceful about placing DEAI at the center of museum work and has signed on to public frameworks promoting those priorities. He wrote plainly that “DEAI is integral to excellence in museum practice. FULL STOP,” and he has advocated embedding those ideas across the organization’s structures and reviews. For critics, that sentence reads less like neutral guidance and more like a declaration of institutional purpose that shapes exhibits, hiring and training.
In a separate recorded comment, Bunch described the Smithsonian’s role in more activist terms, saying, “We call ourselves the Great Convener, but we’re really a great legitimizer. And I want the Smithsonian to legitimize important issues, whether it’s 1619 or climate change.” Those words underscore how museum leadership views the institution as a platform to elevate contested narratives rather than simply a neutral steward of objects and scholarship. That posture unsettles many conservatives who expect federally associated institutions to remain focused on factual history and broad civic education.
Bunch and others also pointed to specific cultural interventions as wins, saying, “Everybody that thought about the 1619 Project, whether they liked it or disagreed with it, saw that the Smithsonian had fingerprints on it. And that to me was a great victory.” The invocation of the 1619 Project is especially charged because that project has been the subject of vigorous scholarly pushback. For those who want strict adherence to balanced historical inquiry, the Smithsonian’s visible alignment with disputed narratives is a red flag.
Operationally, the secretary reports to the board of regents and manages a huge enterprise spread over 21 museums, 21 libraries, research centers and the zoo, and several major internal departments. That reach amplifies the impact of any stated agenda, because policies endorsed at the top can cascade through exhibitions, educational programming and personnel decisions nationwide. With that scope comes a responsibility to be transparent about how priorities are set and how public resources are used.
Financial disclosure records show the compensation picture in stark numbers, with totals from 2020 to 2024 exceeding four million dollars when base salary and benefits are combined. In 2024 alone Bunch’s reported salary was $915,469 with $74,090 in added benefits, while other years show salaries ranging from $726,156 to $861,379 and added benefits up to $68,391. Those figures sit uneasily with taxpayers who cover a substantial portion of the Smithsonian’s costs and who expect judicious stewardship of federal support.
Part of the Smithsonian’s push has been institutionalizing accountability for DEAI, captured in a policy document that instructs museums to “embed responsibility and accountability for implementing DEAI policies and processes into operations, job descriptions, and performance reviews at all levels of the institution, from the board of directors, c-level executives, and senior leaders to middle managers, junior staff, and volunteers.” Making such practices formal across the hierarchy is exactly what skeptics feared: a culture where compliance with a specific worldview is tied to career advancement and institutional legitimacy.
The Trump administration’s review of the Smithsonian, titled Saving America’s Story, leveled sharp criticism. It argued that “Confirmed in the words of museum leadership, this ideological capture has moved the museum’s mission away from straightforward historical education and scholarship toward an extreme political activism that seeks to transform our country,” the report reads. That is a blunt assessment from a Republican-led review and it reflects a broader demand for the institution to return to neutral historical stewardship rather than advocacy.
Bunch has defended his stewardship as nonpartisan, saying, “What the country needs are places that are nonpartisan and safe, where people can grapple with what’s going on around them,” but many observers measure partisanship by actions rather than words. The Smithsonian was created by Congress in 1846 as an independent federal trust, and its own reporting notes that “Financially, the institution depends on the federal government for approximately two-thirds of its funding.” With that level of public support, calls for clear limits on political advocacy and for strict oversight of compensation are only going to grow.
Bunch did not immediately respond to requests for comment on whether he believes his political leanings are at odds with the Smithsonian’s overall purpose or whether federal funding should prevent the organization’s employees from furthering a stated agenda, leaving lawmakers and watchdogs to press for documents and hearings. For those demanding accountability, the core questions remain: when public money supports a cultural institution, who decides the goals it pursues and how are leaders held to account for using that platform?
