— Texas lawmakers, seemingly not content with having gotten NASA's endorsement to move a retired space shuttle to Houston, are now calling for an investigation into how the Smithsonian allegedly objected to relocating the orbiter it has owned for more than a decade.

Senator John Cornyn and Representative Randy Weber on Thursday (Aug. 7) sent a letter to John Roberts, the Smithsonian Institution's chancellor and Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting that the Smithsonian's staff may have violated the law by their efforts to block legislation authorizing the space vehicle's transfer.

"Public reporting suggest that the Smithsonian Institution has taken affirmative steps to oppose the passage and implementation of this provision. These steps reportedly include contacting staff of the Senate Appropriations and Rules Committees to express opposition, as well as engaging members of the press to generate public resistance to the provision's enforcement," wrote Cornyn and Weber to Roberts.

Update (Aug. 8) The Smithsonian issued the following statement in response to Cornyn and Weber's letter:

"The Smithsonian does not engage in direct or grassroots lobbying. We are aware of the letter and are confident that we have acted in accordance with all governing rules and regulations."

In April, Cornyn and Weber introduced matching bills in the Senate and House to remove the space shuttle Discovery from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia, and display it at Space Center Houston, the visitor center for NASA's Johnson Space Center in Texas. Generic language intended to achieve the same result was then inserted into the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which was enacted on July 4.

On Tuesday (Aug. 5), in accordance to the bill's requirements, acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy "made an identification" but did not publicly disclose his choice of space vehicles to be moved. Cornyn later said that Duffy had approved of sending a space shuttle to Houston.

Neither Duffy or Cornyn would confirm which of NASA's three remaining space-flown shuttles was to be moved. Endeavour is the property of the California Science Center in Los Angeles. Atlantis, on display at NASA's Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Florida, is still NASA property.

In a statement, the Smithsonian affirmed that it has held "all rights, title, interest and ownership" of Discovery since 2012.

(Oddly, Cornyn and Weber's letter to Roberts described the law as requiring Duffy "to transfer a space vehicle involved in the Commercial Crew Program," rather than choosing a destination NASA center related to the same, as the bill actually reads. Taken as written, if that was indeed their intent, then Discovery and the other retired shuttles would be exempt, as the winged orbiters were never part of that program. A request for clarification sent to both Congress members' offices was not immediately answered.)

Update (Aug. 8) Cornyn and Weber's letter was corrected to read: "...to transfer a space vehicle to an area involved in the Commercial Crew Program."

In the letter, Cornyn and Weber cited the Anti-Lobbying Act as restricting the use of funds provided by the federal government to "influence members of the public to pressure Congress regarding legislation or appropriations matters."

"As the Smithsonian Institution receives annual appropriations from Congress, it is subject to the restrictions imposed by this statute," they wrote.

The money that Congress allocates to the Smithsonian accounts for about two-thirds of the Institution's annual budget, primarily covering federal staff salaries, collections care, facilities maintenance and the construction and revitalization of the buildings that house the Smithsonian's 21 museums and other centers.

As evidence of the Smithsonian's alleged wrongdoing, Cornyn and Weber cited a July 11 article by Zach Vasile for Flying Magazine, which ran under the headline, "Smithsonian Pushing Back on Plans to Relocate Space Shuttle." Vasile quoted from a message the Institution sent to Congress stating there was no precedence for removing an object from its collection to then send it elsewhere.

The Texas officials wrote that the anti-lobbying restrictions apply to "staff time or public relations resources," and claimed the Smithsonian's actions did not fall under the law's exemptions, including "public speeches, incidental expenditures for public education or communications or activities unrelated to legislation or appropriations."

Cornyn and Weber urged Roberts, as the head of the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, to "conduct a comprehensive internal review" as it applied to how the Institution responded to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

"Should the review reveal that appropriated funds were used in a manner inconsistent with the prohibitions outlined in the Anti-Lobbying Act, we respectfully request that immediate and appropriate corrective measures be implemented to ensure the Institution's full compliance with all applicable statutory and ethical obligations," Cornyn and Weber wrote.