The Head of the Smithsonian Talks About America’s 250th, Why Experts Still Matter and What to Expect From the Institution in 2025

About 7,000 public servants make up the Smithsonian Institution. That’s a fact that Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III likes to emphasize when he talks about the place to which he’s devoted his life and work.

Bunch became the Smithsonian’s 14th Secretary in 2019 and, before that, was founding director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC). His history at the Smithsonian goes back even further. In 1978, he worked at the National Air and Space Museum, and later, after leaving the Smithsonian to become curator of history and program manager at the California African American Museum, he returned in 1989 as supervisory curator at the National Museum of American History. He later became president of the Chicago Historical Society before returning once again to the Smithsonian to serve as executive director of NMAAHC, which would go on to open its National Mall location in 2016.

His over five-year tenure as the Secretary of the Smithsonian has been marked by multiple presidential administrations, the Covid-19 pandemic and now the planning for the 250th anniversary of America’s Declaration of Independence.

“One of the reasons I agreed to become Secretary years ago was because of my profound respect for the amazing work of my colleagues,” he says, adding that the Smithsonian “is a collection of amazing people who do work that sometimes is not understood, sometimes that is undervalued, but it’s work that as Secretary, I see as essential to a nation understanding itself.”

Because, as Bunch notes, the Smithsonian “will always be at the heart of what America is,” he spoke with Smithsonian magazine this month in a wide-ranging interview about the state of the Institution, including everything from handling new presidential administrations to the effects of climate change to the power of the pandas.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

We are talking today right before a new presidential administration comes to Washington. How does the Smithsonian traditionally prepare for and mark the transition of power?

I think there’s two different things: First of all, when I was a curator, I curated the “American Presidency” show at [the National Museum of] American History, so that [with] every new administration, several things kick in automatically. You expand an exhibition, you collect materials from the inauguration, you also obviously collect the first lady’s gown. So there’s a process that we’ve done for generations. The other thing is recognizing that the Smithsonian is a great source, a great reservoir for new administrations, whether it’s new members of Congress, whether it’s new people who are coming in, that the Smithsonian gives them that place to dip into history, to art, to culture. So basically, the Smithsonian sees itself as both servants to new administrations, but also the consistent place that you can always count on.

As a historian, how do you view this current moment of seemingly high social and political polarization?

I just got back yesterday from a big historical conference, and as you can imagine, there are a lot of conversations about the uniqueness of this moment. [Some historians say,] “It’s no different than what happened in 1964, no different than what happened in 1862.” That’s what we historians do. I think that what this tells us is that every administration is about change. Sometimes it’s modest change; sometimes it’s great change. Part of what is interesting to us, as historians, is to [ask]: Is this really one of those moments where there’s a profound shift?

We will see where America will come out at the end of this, but there’s no doubt that [the election result] was about different ways of thinking. It’s about a fundamental challenge between those who believe America’s a work in progress and is continuing to try to live up to those ideals, versus those who believe that we’ve had moments where we really were where America should be and now how do we return back to them? So I think that’s the challenge. And I think as a historian, as an institution, part of what is interesting is to document that and be able to interpret that going forward in the future.

As Secretary, I’d imagine that you think about handling polarization often, and I’m wondering what methods you use to sort of diffuse that when it comes to exhibitions and funders, and speaking for the Smithsonian and its stances on certain issues?

It’s really clear that the Smithsonian, by its very nature, is always nonpartisan. It is always driven by the best scholarship. But it’s important to recognize that if you explore art, history, culture, science—by definition, you’re going to deal with controversy. By definition, you’re going to deal with multiple points of view. So to create the notion that the Smithsonian will never be involved in controversy is a wonderful dream, but it’s just a dream.

What we try to do is make sure that we understand multiple points of view, that we understand the best scholarship that shapes that. … The goal here is never, ever to create a sense of self-censorship in the Smithsonian, but the goal is to recognize that the Smithsonian has to educate a whole lot of people, some who believe exactly in the interpretations you do, others who are diametrically opposed, and you’ve got to be able to serve both.

So that’s part of the challenge, is to make sure that you are grappling with art, history, culture and science in a way that even if you have debates, that people recognize that you’re cognizant of those debates, but that ultimately you’re making choices, interpretations based on scholarship, based on understanding the tension between scholarship and the public. Understanding that the joy of the Smithsonian is to give the public both what it wants, but also what it needs. That means that the Smithsonian will always be walking a tightrope, but that’s OK, because our job is to educate, to challenge, to make a nation better. And that’s not easy, and we shouldn’t be doing what’s easy.

In recent years, I’ve seen a lot made about the idea of the term “the death of expertise”: the rejection of both established knowledge and reliance on experts. Given that, how should the Smithsonian’s experts, its scientists, historians and curators, approach the public when there’s this perception of rejecting established knowledge?

The good thing to keep in mind is that the Smithsonian is still a highly trusted source. And in some ways, the expertise of the Smithsonian is really part of the tools that people will use to say: Expertise is important. That just because you have an idea, and I have an idea, they’re not always equal. They’re equally valid, but they’re not always equal. I believe very strongly in the importance of expertise, the power of expertise, the need for expertise. But I also believe that the best expertise understands the non-experts’ point of view. I always argue that I became a much better historian of America, of Black America, when I began to learn the living community, not just the historical.

And that meant that you had to find ways to negotiate, to demonstrate where the expertise comes, but also to be smart enough to know that expertise comes from all corners, and that as a scholar, you want to learn from a variety of points of view. That’s really the key: to make sure that scholars who understand a point of view ... [also] understand that point of view is made better when you listen and learn, and make determinations based on a variety of issues. But the most important thing is: We have to believe that expertise is important when it comes to the increase and diffusion of knowledge. And we will always stand on that.

Research has found that Americans have little trust in their institutions and government. The Pew Research Center did a survey that found only 22 percent of U.S. adults said that they trust the federal government to do the right thing always or most of the time. So, with the Smithsonian having the word “institution” literally in its name and a representation of the country, how does it reckon with that?

In some ways we already have. When people look at this, when you look at those surveys, I read them very carefully. It’s cultural institutions and the Smithsonian [that] are still the most trusted. What happens, though, is there’s always a debate about what does it mean to be “federal,” right? When I was building the African American Museum, there was a lot of chatter that you couldn't build a museum that told the truth if you’re part of the federal government, but I think I demonstrated you can do that. It’s really incumbent upon us to demonstrate that we listen and learn, [and] that we really do also believe in the kind of expertise that comes from these institutions. Almost every day, you have to prove your worth.

When I was a curator at the American History Museum, we always recognized that our job was to challenge ourselves, to learn more from our audiences, to make sure that the work we do matters not just to us. In essence, I would argue that what’s important for the Smithsonian is to remember that science, art, history, culture are too important just to be in the hands of those that are experts, that it really has to be shared and made better by the interaction with a variety of people. That’s the wonderful tension of working in a place like the Smithsonian, that you have the expertise, but that expertise has to be shared, and you have to be made better by the response to that expertise.

And next year is a big anniversary for the nation, the 250th. How is the Smithsonian approaching that commemoration?

Oh, when you said, “next year,” I was like, “Oh man, is it that soon? Yep. OK.”

Commemorations like the 250th are crucially important, because they give us a chance to, first of all, shine a light on history, which is something that many Americans don’t shine a light on as much as I’d like. But two, in a time of partisanship, in a time of debate, in a time where the country needs to find ways to come together, it’s incumbent on places like the Smithsonian to try to do that. And I think that it’s really challenging, because there’s easy answers and then there are more complicated answers. And I’ve always thought that institutions need to do the hard work, not the easy work. It’s important for us to find the right tension between celebrating and aspiring. Part of the 250th is to say that there is something wondrous about the Declaration of Independence, about Thomas Jefferson, about the founding men and women—amazing, what they did.

So really now our challenge is to make that ideal concrete. And what you see over history are people’s attempts to do that, whether it is the women’s movement in the 19th century or the abolitionist movement. What they’re all trying to do is build on this notion of fairness and freedom that’s at the heart of the Declaration. What I would argue is the founders would be so pleased to see that in a variety of ways—not always easy, sometimes violent, but in a variety of ways—what people have done is work to make the country be the America of their dreams. And that’s what we want to try to do with the 250th, is to say, “Here’s how you understand who we once were. Here’s who we are today, and here’s who we can be.”

The notion of recognizing that 50 million people are going to come to the [National] Mall that summer, how do you activate the Mall? How do you make sure that you have a monthlong Folklife Festival that’ll give people a way to see how our differences shape each other through culture? How do you then craft interesting exhibitions in each museum that illuminate a piece of this notion of what it means to be an American? What does it mean to celebrate 250 years?

And then to be able to work with partners around the country, whether it’s festivals or exhibitions, that allow people to see that the Smithsonian is touching every home and touching every classroom. My goal is that we should use the 250th as a time to bring people together through knowledge, through truth, through understanding.

Who are some of the historical figures on your mind when it comes to the 250th? There will be so much attention paid to the founders, but are there other figures who you’re thinking of?

I think [of] this notion of making real the ideals—whether it is language from Native cultures that talk about what freedom really should be and what fairness means, whether it’s looking at everybody from Susan B. Anthony to Martin Luther King to Fannie Lou Hamer. One of the most important things for me is to make sure that the work we do really reflects the importance of gender. That’s why I hate the term “founding fathers.” There are women who have shaped those ideals, like Abigail Adams, for example.

Definitions of America, struggles to make America be America, come from many different parts and from many different people. I always love the Langston Hughes poem that basically says, “Let America be America. Let America be the America of our dreams.” That’s the goal for the 250th, to remember that this is an amazing point of departure. How do we then make real the dreams of those founders, the dreams of all those who sacrificed, some died, in order to help a country be the place of fairness and freedom?

Lately, in the museum space, a sort of reckoning with the past is a big point of emphasis, and specifically the repatriation of human remains and sacred objects. How is the Smithsonian’s repatriation process is going?

I’ve always thought that reckoning with the past is what a historian does. So this is nothing new. This is what you do every day. What’s important to me is that we build on some of the great work that’s been done before. Our repatriation project with many Native peoples has been really sort of pioneering and being followed around the world. What I wanted to do, though, was to say, “How is the Smithsonian not just the best place of scholarship, not just of the best place of collections, but a best place of ethical considerations?”

We do want to, in a reasonable way, return collections that shouldn’t have been taken in the first place. I returned the Benin Bronzes, because we knew that was part of a British expedition that was taken, but the goal was to work [it] out so that the ownership of the bronzes went back to Nigeria. But also, we were able to keep some of the bronzes to interpret the story, to tell what happened.

Human remains [are] really one of the most important things we have to grapple with. We have to recognize that the fields of archeology, anthropology and history [have] changed and that some of the attitudes, where these things were collected to prove scientific racism, those things are wrong.

My goal here is that we need to recognize that these are not specimens. These are people, and we need to treat them with honor and dignity. Sometimes that honor is returning them to communities, to families. Sometimes that honor is maybe burying them with honor here in Washington, D.C.

So the goal here is to recognize that the work that [the National Museum of Natural History] is doing, and [Undersecretary for Science and Research] Ellen Stofan and [Undersecretary for Museums and Culture] Kevin Gover have been doing, has really allowed us to say, “We want to make sure that the Smithsonian is that place that you can look to, because it’s ethically sound, because it is recognizing: How do we do better than what we once did? How do we basically be the model of what we expect other cultural institutions to do?”

That’s my challenge to the Smithsonian, is: Let us recognize the past, let us not be held captive by that past, but let us really move forward and demonstrate this is the way remains, for example, should be dealt with, should be treated, should be respected.

What is the next milestone that the Smithsonian has in that process?

We’re working with Howard University to think about all the human remains that came from Howard, that are about, basically, Black Washington. We’re negotiating with the Washington University and the folks in St. Louis. What I want to do is take two of the big collections, and let’s go ahead and begin to figure out: How do you return them, or how do you at least bury them with honor? And that will then be the process that will unfold going forward.

Part of it will be collaborations, part will be reaching out to local communities. Part of it is to make sure that we know all that we’ve had.

[Now that we have a policy in place,] let us actually do the work and have some examples of returning them or interning them. So that’s where we are. But my goal here is to make sure that we shine light on that. We’ve gotten support from the Mellon Foundation to make sure we can do that. The goal here is to basically say that I am not looking for simple signposts. What I’m looking for is a several-year-long process that will ultimately allow us to rethink how we use human remains, and to repair our relationship with many communities because of human remains.

And you mentioned the Benin Bronzes. What went into the decision to return them and then have them displayed again at the National Museum of African Art?

The most important thing is ownership, right? Returning these to the rightful owners.

So all the bronzes we had, the ownership went back to Nigeria. Then what we said is that we wanted to return, actually physically return, X number. I don’t remember the exact number right off the top of my head, but we wanted to then keep some, because that would allow us to make sure, as the nation of Nigeria wanted, that these amazing materials will be seen by many. It also allows us to tell the story in a more complicated way, to say, part of the reason ownership was returned was because of A, B, C and D, right?

So for me, it was a great opportunity to both send the message that this is what we do, because it’s right to do. Secondly, to figure out what’s the best way to negotiate with the return country. Third, how do you make sure that, because many people do come to the Smithsonian, that you're able to continue to tell that story by maintaining or retaining some of those Benin Bronzes?

It’s really thinking about what is the strategy that first and foremost allows us to be the kind of institution I want us to be, and then how can we make sure that we can continue to tell the stories? Because there’s no doubt that more people will see those bronzes here in Washington than in Nigeria.

The Smithsonian has two new museums without a physical location at the moment. What comes next for them?

When I built the [National Museum of African American History and Culture], I didn’t have a location for the first year or so. So this is in keeping with the way you build things. But I think that what will happen is over the past year, we hired Elizabeth Babcock, an amazing director for the [Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum]. We already had Jorge [Zamanillo, the founding director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Latino] here.

The key was, one, get the right leadership in. Two, to continue to work on where these museums will be sited, to work with Congress, to work with the new administrations, to get that nailed down. That decision is crucially important, and that’s something we’re working on now. I expect these museums to follow a pattern we did at the African American Museum, which is to say the museum exists, it just doesn’t have a building.

So [they do] exhibitions and work with educational communities, and basically build what I call a campaign of visibility so that people around the world begin to see what these museums can be and how great they are, even if they don’t have a building yet. The next steps are to continue to build the staff, continue to do the kind of work that shows what the museums can be even before they have a building, and then to really nail down what the site would be.

And then, once you nail down the sites, you then go into what we call pre-programming, which is basically figuring out what’s the ultimate size, what’s the, as they call it, “stacking”: what gets put next to what. And once you do that, then you’re able to sort of understand public interest, understand visibility, understand the collections, and then you hire the architects that come up with the visual design of what the building will be. So those are all the steps that’ll take place over the next X number of years.

What are some of the Smithsonian projects that you’re looking forward to this year, whether that’s new research or discoveries?

The amazing research about climate change and ForestGEO and marine work that we will continue to do that is unbelievably important. I’m struck by what I see at [the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory]. In essence, what these places remind you is that Smithsonian science is innovative and cutting-edge, and is the kind of thing that others build upon. So I’m really excited about seeing that.

I’m also struck by, I mean, obviously, let’s be honest, pandas are back. I always said I didn’t want to be the Secretary that lost the pandas. But I think that I would argue that while there’s great excitement about the pandas themselves, I think this really is about the Smithsonian conservation science, the work that we’re doing in China, the work that we’re doing with cheetahs out in Front Royal, the work that we’re doing with black-footed ferrets. It’s really about: How does the Smithsonian make the nation better through conservation?

Then I would argue that the Smithsonian tends to do amazing exhibitions. When I look around, there’s an exhibition on art educators at the Anacostia [Community] Museum that really talked about how art was not something that was highbrow, but that was integrated into communities and was used as part of the struggle for fairness.

The exhibition that just opened at the African American Museum, “In Slavery’s Wake,” is one of the most important exhibitions that Smithsonian will ever do, because it's really a collaboration with Brazil … and the U.K., and that in essence, it’s going to travel around the country, travel around the world. And as I met with many of those people as I went to Brazil and others, the recognition that what the Smithsonian does is allowing other nations to grapple with a past that many want to and many don’t want to, so we’re really playing that national impact.

I look at the education work that’s being done, I look at the kind of work that [Undersecretary for Education] Monique Chism is doing that is really allowing the Smithsonian to be an umbrella that helps teachers do what is the hardest thing in the world, which is to imbue the next generation with a love of education. I’m struck by the opportunity we have through the affiliates program to allow the Smithsonian to be made better by those partnerships, but also to touch Montana, New Mexico, New Jersey. That all excites me. The state of the Smithsonian as a place that serves America, as a place that has a global impact is very good. I think there are always going to be budget challenges, always going to be political challenges, but for over 178 years, the Smithsonian has made America better, and I’m convinced it’ll continue to do that.

You mentioned “In Slavery's Wake,” and you and President Joe Biden recently visited the National Museum of Slavery in Angola. What was that like?

Part of my goal has been, whether it’s the work I’ve done with Portugal or the Netherlands or in Barbados over the years, about, how do you illuminate a story that’s crucial to national history? Whether it’s the Portuguese history or the Dutch history. What I think is interesting was to go to Angola and to basically recognize, first of all, Angola is a place where almost a third of all African Americans in this country today are descended from. So it really was crucially important. The first 18 or 19 enslaved people that came to what is now Jamestown were from Angola. And so, there’s a long history. I wanted to sort of experience that and basically be humbled by it, and to sort of walk with President Biden and the museum director to see some of the collections they had, the instruments of torture in a way, the shackles, etc.

But also to see the culture that comes out of this. One of the things that was so powerful about the trip was they pulled out some of the instruments, musical instruments that people kept with them, at least in their minds. And when they got to, whether it was Brazil or the United States, they then recreated those. So it was very, very powerful. What is important to me is to recognize that the slave trade is the first global business. It really makes modern Europe and it shapes modern Africa. And so, what I want is people to understand its impact on the African, but also on the non-African.

Earlier you also mentioned climate change—that’s another big part of the Smithsonian’s education. And I’m curious from a local level and a global level, the local level being that the museums on the National Mall are susceptible to flooding concerns, and then educating about climate change on a global level, how the Smithsonian is handling that?

When we built the African American Museum, it’s got more pumps and slurry walls, it’s all prepared for the 500-year flood. And at American History, we continue to move collections, put in resources with our building maintenance that allow us to grapple with it. It’s important for us to use this as examples of the real impact of climate change locally. It’s also important, though, that we have to be seen as a place that, in a reasoned way, talks about the impact of climate change, that we’re not going to get into debate with climate deniers. I’m not going to do that.

We’re going to tell the story, look at the changing water levels, look at the changing impact of this on our health, and we will tell those stories, so that the public will have a chance to grapple with it. We don’t expect all minds to be changed, but we expect all minds to understand that this is something you’ve got to look at and wrestle with.

What do you think are the biggest misconceptions the public has about the Smithsonian?

[One thing some don’t realize] is that research is at the heart of the Smithsonian, whether it’s in exhibitions or educational programs or our science research, scholarship is really at the heart of the Smithsonian. So while people understand the diffusion of knowledge, they don’t understand the increase of knowledge.

Another thing is that the Smithsonian is really as much about today and tomorrow as it is about yesterday. And that the work we do really allows you to dip into a reservoir of the past or of culture and be able to find tools to help you live your life.

The notion that the Smithsonian is something you visit in eighth grade and then when you have kids is really a great thing. But [the Smithsonian] is also an amazing tool to help you think about climate change, help you think about the role of politics, or to help you think about the discovery of diamonds and what does that mean. To me, the Smithsonian needs to continue to do a better job of articulating what it is, which is a place for all Americans that has a global impact, that really allows us to do something crucial, to find understanding, to find clarity, and maybe to find a little bit of hope.

To speak a moment about, as you say, “today … and yesterday.” As we talk, former President Jimmy Carter is lying in state. Did you ever have the chance to work with him?

Sure. When I co-curated the exhibition “The American Presidency,” we actually interviewed all the living presidents, and Carter was one of them. And what you were struck by is, Carter said to us how devastated he was by losing after one term, and he vowed he was going to be the best former president there ever was. And I think he was. You could make an argument that he did much more with his administration than people give him credit for.

But I thought that his kindness of interviewing, talking to us was great. And then, the most amazing thing happened. Shortly after that, I was flying to Atlanta, and Carter was on the plane, and he got up and shook hands with everybody on the plane. He said, “Welcome to Atlanta.”

Whoa. I thought to myself, “What a nice guy.” Over the years, I did things with him at the Carter Center and others, and you really are taken by a commitment to making the country better.

Another thing I’m wondering, just in terms of the big things happening at the Smithsonian, what excites you most about the latest phase in the reopening of the National Air and Space Museum?

As somebody who began his career at the Air and Space Museum, it means a lot to me to see that, and what is already available is unbelievably brilliant. I mean, it’s good stuff, but the way it’s interpreted, the way it’s presented really allows you to understand the complexity and the many levels of the artifacts that you’re looking at.

Having the completed opening of Air and Space for the 250th is really part of our gift back to America. To say, “You come to the Smithsonian, you’re going to get a chance to grapple with something very new and very important.” So I’m really excited about that. I’m also heavily excited about Udvar-Hazy. The collections out there are just unbelievably moving and meaningful, and there’s nothing like standing next to a space shuttle. The Smithsonian is always going to be driven by its amazing collections, but it’s going to be more important by the way we share, interpret and help people find meaning based on those collections.

And we can’t end without talking about the pandas. The pandas are making their public debut very soon. How did they become such a huge part of the Institution? Were they always rock stars, or did the fandom sort of increase over time?

The pandas were always stars, always visible. When they came as a result of [President Richard] Nixon, people had never seen those things. I remember I was an undergraduate, and I think I even cut a class to go see the pandas. They’ve always been an attraction. Now, part of it initially was they were an attraction because they demonstrated cultural diplomacy. They demonstrated what was first called ping-pong diplomacy and all of that, and recognized that sort of culture. The pandas could be part of what could bring countries together. And then, I think they just became iconic Washington. When you think of Washington, D.C., you think of the Capitol, and the Lincoln Memorial, and the Washington Monument, the Smithsonian and the pandas.

And then, when the pandas were returned, there was this sort of panda angst withdrawal. I remember I was coming back from some trip when the pandas were landing at Dulles, and suddenly I’m watching television. Oh, my God, they’re following the pandas on the trucks. You realize how important this is to the public.

And the pandas really give you, regardless of partisanship, regardless of the challenges of the economy, they give you a moment to smile. They give you a moment to connect with other visitors, and they give you a moment to recognize the beauty of nature as well, as only the Smithsonian can do.

Kayla Randall | READ MORE

Kayla Randall is Smithsonian magazine's digital editor, museums.