In a Congress where bipartisan agreement on naming a post office can feel like a heavy lift, 163 House members — 82 Republicans and 81 Democrats — have signed onto a single bill. H.R. 1329, the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum Act, would lift a legal barrier that has prevented the Smithsonian from building its already-authorized women’s history museum within the protected core of the National Mall. The bill doesn’t appropriate a dollar. It doesn’t create a new agency. It fixes a siting problem that has stalled construction for five years — and it has attracted one of the largest bipartisan cosponsor lists of the 119th Congress.

What the Bill Actually Does

Congress authorized the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum back in December 2020 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The Smithsonian conducted a two-year site search, evaluating more than 25 locations, and its Board of Regents identified two optimal sites — both on or adjacent to the National Mall.

The problem: a 2003 law known as the Commemorative Works Act declared the Mall’s central "Reserve" a "substantially completed work of civic art" and barred new museums, memorials, or visitor centers from being built there. The 2020 authorization law explicitly acknowledged this restriction, stating the museum could not be located in the Reserve.

H.R. 1329 strikes that prohibition. It also streamlines the federal land-transfer process so that if the Smithsonian selects a site under another agency’s jurisdiction, the transfer proceeds through notification rather than requiring a separate act of Congress.

There is precedent. Congress granted the same Reserve exemption for the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which opened on the Mall in 2016.

The American Women’s History Museum Act also adds a provision that did not exist in the original 2020 law: a requirement that the museum’s advisory council ensure exhibits and programs represent "the broad spectrum of communities of women," including "varied viewpoints, political ideologies, cultures, and lived experiences." The Smithsonian must report to Congress every two years on compliance.

Why 163 Members Signed On

The bipartisan women’s museum bill draws from an unusually wide ideological range. The cosponsor list includes Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL). Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) introduced the bill alongside Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) as the lead Democratic cosponsor.

Several factors explain the breadth of support among Smithsonian women’s museum cosponsors:

It’s narrow and procedural. The bill does not spend money. It removes a legal obstacle to a project Congress already approved. That makes it a low-risk vote for fiscal hawks.

The viewpoint-diversity clause. Section 2(c) of the bill explicitly requires the museum to draw on sources reflecting diverse political ideologies — not just diverse demographics. This provision appears designed to address conservative concerns that a federally funded cultural institution could tilt ideologically. The biennial congressional reporting requirement adds an accountability layer that further broadened Republican comfort.

The Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues. Malliotakis serves as Republican Vice Co-Chair of the caucus, while Chu is a senior Democratic member. The caucus provided an institutional vehicle for cross-party recruitment, as noted in a Congressional Record entry from March 31, 2025.

What Cosponsors Are Saying

Republican Voices

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN), speaking at a February 2026 legislative hearing, said: "I’m proud to support and co-sponsor H.R. 1329, the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum Act, introduced by my good friend and colleague from New York, Representative Malliotakis. I’m glad to see the work that the Smithsonian has made thus far in working to build the museum, and I’m glad this legislation is moving forward to ensure we are able to finally make this important project a reality."

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), one of the bill’s longest-serving champions, has advocated for the museum across multiple Congresses. On International Women’s Day in March 2025, he released a statement pushing to secure a National Mall location. Fitzpatrick previously spoke on the House floor in February 2020 in support of the predecessor bill and celebrated when the original authorization was signed into law that December.

Democratic Voices

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), speaking at the same February 2026 hearing, framed the museum in the context of the nation’s approaching 250th anniversary: "The completion of the Smithsonian’s American Women’s History Museum and the Latino History Museum would create another avenue for a more complete, full story about our nation’s history. It’s imperative that as we approach the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding, we tell the whole story — the truth about the whole story — the founding ideals and the people who were excluded from them for too long, the progress that we’ve made and the work that we still have to do. That’s true love of country. That’s patriotism."

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) noted at the same hearing that the bill had been "cosponsored by more than half of the House, and certainly time that we enacted it into law."

Does the White House Support the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum?

The Trump administration has not issued a formal Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1329. But there are signals worth tracking.

In March 2025, lead sponsor Malliotakis announced that President Trump endorsed the push for the museum at an event with female members of both chambers. According to SILive.com, Trump stated that Malliotakis had been working "hard" to get the museum built. That reported endorsement, while not a formal SAP, is notable given that the administration has broadly pursued federal spending cuts and agency downsizing through initiatives like DOGE.

The cosponsor list also includes several members closely aligned with the administration, including Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), whom Trump nominated to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and Rep. Brian Jack (R-GA), a former Trump White House aide.

What’s Next — and What Could Slow It Down

The bill was referred to the House Committee on House Administration and the Committee on Natural Resources. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands held hearings in June 2025. An identical companion bill, S. 1303, has been introduced in the Senate.

As Roll Call reported in April 2025, questions have been raised about whether the administration’s broader anti-DEI executive orders could create headwinds for the museum’s progress, even as the bill itself sails through women’s history museum Congress committees with bipartisan backing.

The viewpoint-diversity provision may serve as a firewall against those concerns — but it could also become a flashpoint if debates over museum content intensify.

The bottom line: The HR 1329 bill is a rare piece of legislation where the policy is simple, the politics are favorable on both sides, and the only thing standing in the way is a 22-year-old zoning restriction. Whether that translates into a signature remains the open question.