Trump vuides broadening his scrutiny of U.S. museums. What are the possibilities?
In a move that has raised concerns within the museum community, the Trump administration has initiated a review of museums across the United States. The White House started an audit of the Smithsonian earlier this month, with the review potentially affecting around 22,000 institutions nationwide.
According to data collected and analyzed by the American Alliance of Museums, approximately 20% of United States museums are operated by some level of government. Of these, 63% receive some kind of federal funding. For instance, the Smithsonian Institution, which includes the National Museum of African American History and Culture, receives 62% of its funding from federal sources.
The review, which is reportedly focusing on leading museums deemed potentially spreading "divisive or partisan" narratives about American history, has drawn criticism from historians who argue that only qualified historians and museum professionals should conduct such reviews to ensure historical accuracy.
Professor Patty Gerstenblith, a legal scholar specializing in cultural heritage, emphasized that museums have a First Amendment right of expression that is clearly established by case law, and that artistic expression is also protected free speech. However, she also noted that speech can be regulated but not on the basis of viewpoint discrimination.
The president and CEO of the American Alliance of Museums, Marilyn Jackson, framed the issue as one of creative and scholarly independence. She expressed concerns that government officials on the state or local level may try to align their institutions with Trump's vision, using financial leverage.
Experts in the museum world are also concerned that major donors may press museum executives and curators to reframe their exhibitions to fit political narratives that comply with those coming from the White House.
The Supreme Court upheld the "decency" requirement in the 1998 case National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, which addressed whether the government could regulate art if they funded it. However, a federal judge recently ruled that the elimination of NEH grants was unlawful, suggesting a potential legal challenge to any attempt to regulate museums based on their content.
Despite these concerns, Gerstenblith clarified that freedom of expression does not necessarily mean that the federal government is required to pay for that expression. She also pointed out that many local museums sit on government-owned land that they either occupy for free or rent for a nominal fee.
As the review progresses, museum leaders and experts remain vigilant, emphasizing the importance of creative and scholarly independence in the museum sector. They stress that museums play a crucial role in preserving and interpreting our nation's history, and any attempt to align them with political narratives could compromise this essential mission.
Read also:
- Contest for Composing Patriotic Poems: Suggestions for Poems About the National Flag in Hindi and English via MyGov
- Decrease in Tourism from the U.S.
- Americas northeastern regions entice visitors with special offers exclusive to Canadians, as transatlantic travel suffers a downturn in popularity
- Stranded travelers in Sochi receive a response from Russia's aviation authority regarding their predicament in Israel.
