Murkowski and Merkley press Interior on cost of Smithsonian-area signs

Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Jeff Merkley of Oregon lead the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee as chair and ranking member. On Thursday, they sent a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum demanding details on who is paying for signage the National Park Service has been ordered to install outside the National Museum of American History, and how much it will cost.

Executive Order 14416, "Restoring Trust in the Smithsonian Institution," was issued July 24. It directs the Park Service to install temporary signage and exhibits along NPS-maintained sidewalks near the museum. The order says implementation must be consistent with applicable law and subject to available appropriations. The signs are meant to promote a report titled "Saving America's Story," which alleges ideological capture at the museum, and to direct visitors to other sources for what the order calls accurate history.

The senators asked how many signs there will be, where each would go, what they will be made of, and whether they would be affixed to existing poles or require new structures. They asked what each sign will cost and who is drafting and finalizing the content. They also asked how long the "temporary" signs will remain in place, what the total cost will be including planning, sign-making and installation, which DOI or NPS accounts would pay for it, and how many Interior or Park Service staff will work on the directive. Two further questions ask whether there is any precedent for using NPS land or NPS funding to communicate messages conflicting with an outside entity's ongoing activities, and whether the Park Service will seek public feedback before the signs go up.

"There is nothing more American than telling our story truthfully," they wrote.

The letter sets no deadline. The senators said they look forward to a prompt response. Neither Interior nor the Park Service has publicly responded to the letter, and no Smithsonian response has been made public.

The exchange sits inside a broader national argument over how U.S. history is interpreted at federal museums, and whether executive power can override curatorial judgment. That argument is not settled. This letter is one more marker of where the lines are being drawn.