The recent article in the official White House newsletter, titled “President Trump Is Right About the Smithsonian,” has sparked significant controversy and dialogue among artists and scholars.
This piece critiques various artworks, exhibitions, and programs at the Smithsonian institution, specifically targeting content related to race, slavery, immigration, and sexuality.
Among the highlighted venues are the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, The National Portrait Gallery, and The National Museum of the American Latino.
The scrutiny comes shortly after White House officials sent a letter to eight of the Smithsonian’s museums, demanding current and future plans for exhibitions, social media content, and other material.
These museums have been given a tight 120-day timeframe to comply with what the administration describes as a “comprehensive review,” aimed at aligning the Smithsonian with President Donald Trump’s cultural directives as the nation approaches its 250th anniversary celebrations.
According to the White House, the goal is to replace “divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate and constructive descriptions.”
NPR reached out to the White House for comments about the article focusing on the Smithsonian but received no response.
The list of artists and content referenced appears largely informed by a recent article from The Federalist, a conservative online magazine.
This article controversially labeled the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History as being “filled with wall-to-wall, anti-American propaganda.”
The Smithsonian’s press office declined to comment on the White House’s list but had previously asserted a commitment to maintaining independence from political or partisan influences.
Several artists and scholars who spoke to NPR expressed their deep concerns about being further targeted by the administration.
Yet, interestingly, others found pride in being identified by the White House, describing the situation as a “badge of honor.”
Many referenced historical instances when art faced strong political backlash, while others voiced concerns that Trump’s push for “anti-woke” art may discourage artistic expression across museums and galleries.
One artist spotlighted by the White House newsletter is Rigoberto A. Gonzalez.
His 2020 painting, “Refugees Crossing the Border Wall into South Texas,” gained attention for its portrayal of an immigrant family navigating perilous obstacles upon arriving in the U.S.
Gonzalez’s artwork presents a family descending a ladder at the U.S.-Mexico border wall, with visual elements that reflect societal critiques, such as a discarded fast-food container symbolizing an “overindulgent American diet” and a Victoria’s Secret ad representing “oversexualized consumerism.”
The White House’s critique mentions Gonzalez’s work for supposedly “commemorating the act of illegally crossing” the Southern border.
However, Gonzalez disputes this characterization, asserting that his painting depicts realities rather than advocating for illegal immigration.
Currently, his work is part of the Varmar Private Collection.
Born in Tijuana, Gonzalez is now an American citizen and often explores themes related to the border region in his art.
Initially, Gonzalez was shocked to find his name on the White House’s listing, yet he later expressed a sense of satisfaction, noting that his work challenges anti-immigrant sentiment.
He drew parallels between the current political climate and the “degenerate art” exhibitions of 1930s Germany, which targeted modern artists not in line with Nazi ideals.
“The Nazis gathered modern artists they deemed to be not within the context of their ideals,” Gonzalez explained, adding that he believes the current administration operates under a similar agenda.
Another notable figure called out in the White House newsletter is Ibram X. Kendi, a history professor and writer at Howard University.
Described as a “hardcore woke activist” by the White House, Kendi is the author of the influential book “How to be an Anti-Racist.”
He shared that such targeted labeling does not surprise him, acknowledging a trend where serious academic work on racism is often dismissed as mere activism.
Kendi posited that this tactic is designed to discredit his scholarship and divert attention from his research, which includes efforts to honestly confront and analyze racism in America.
By painting him as an “outcast,” Kendi believes the White House hopes to prevent his influential work from reaching their supporters.
He described the current political climate as starkly opposed to the transformations his scholarship encourages.
Kendi’s work has been featured prominently at the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and he stresses the importance of confronting historical narratives of racism and oppression.
He believes that the White House’s actions echo Jim Crow-era tactics deployed by segregationist leaders against accurate representations of African American history.
Such attempts to influence the portrayal of slavery and civil rights echo earlier efforts to downplay the horrors faced by enslaved individuals.
Artist Amy Sherald, known for her iconic portrait of former First Lady Michelle Obama, recently canceled her exhibition at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery.
The canceled exhibition would have featured a painting titled “Trans Forming Liberty,” which portrays a trans woman adorned in a blue gown and enamel gloves.
Sherald, in conversations with NPR, previously noted how the current political discourse affects her work.
She expressed that the challenges presented by the Trump administration serve as a call to action for artists to counter what she frames as a “daily erasure” of significant cultural histories through their creative endeavors.
Commenting on the political pressure faced by artists, Sherald metaphorically described each portrait she creates as a “counterterrorist attack” against efforts to censor or distort narratives surrounding American history, particularly those related to Black Americans.
Artist Hugo Crosthwaite is also among those highlighted by the White House.
In 2022, the National Portrait Gallery commissioned him to create a study of Dr. Anthony Fauci, who led the nation’s public health response during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Crosthwaite animated a series of 19 drawings that traced Fauci’s career, addressing his roles in both the HIV/AIDS crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.
While the portrait remains accessible online, Crosthwaite speculated that it caught the White House’s ire simply due to its association with a figure who has become a contentious topic in political debates surrounding pandemic responses.
“It seems like they just came up with the idea, ‘oh, this is about Fauci. So then we hate it now,'” Crosthwaite remarked.
Despite this, he expressed pride at receiving recognition alongside other artists contributing to the dialogue on diversity.
He pointed out that attempts to censor art often backfire, generating increased interest and attention instead.
Patricia Cronin, a Brooklyn-based artist, has also felt the weight of political scrutiny on her work.
Her sculpture, “Memorial to a Marriage,” is a bronze representation of two women embracing on a bed and is part of the National Portrait Gallery’s permanent collection.
Initially a poetic protest against the absence of LGBT representation in public monuments, it transitioned to a celebratory symbol after same-sex marriage became legal, yet it is becoming increasingly relevant as a statement of resistance once again.
Although “Memorial to a Marriage” was not included in the White House’s critical list, Cronin expressed concern that similar works could face scrutiny in the future.
The implications of targeted criticism from the White House extend beyond immediate censorship; they also present a chilling effect across institutions that may feel pressured to self-censor.
“Part of this whole censorship is to erase our history, but also erase our lives,” voiced Cronin, emphasizing the importance of accurately depicting American experiences in museums.
She warned that if public institutions are restricted from showcasing a complete picture of American history, it will have long-lasting detrimental effects on artists and their work.
Richard Meyers, an art historian and professor at Stanford University, expressed his deep bewilderment regarding the White House’s scrutiny of the Smithsonian.
He stated that he had never encountered a list of this nature in his career and likened it to McCarthyism.
Meyers characterized the call for a review of the Smithsonian’s exhibitions as strategically vague, raising concerns about whether this constitutes an “enemies list” or an impending removal of artworks from public view.
He noted that distinguishing serious artistic discourse from mere censorship has become increasingly complex in contemporary society.
Meyers drew comparisons to past cultural battles in the late 1980s and early 1990s, focusing on public outcries against works like Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographs and Andres Serrano’s contentious piece “Piss Christ.”
He highlighted that artistic censorship often ignites passionate responses, whether through protests, legal action, or the creation of opposing artworks.
The threat of self-censorship looms large in the current climate, as Meyers fears the intimidation might stop emerging artists from expressing their voices.
This, he emphasizes, could ultimately lead to a loss of visibility for diverse artistic perspectives and narratives.
Amid these turbulent conversations about cultural identity and expression, artists and scholars alike are coming together to advocate for accountability and a more honest representation of the diverse tapestry of American life.
As the political landscape continues to shape the conversation around art and its role in society, the importance of upholding creative freedoms and ensuring that all voices are heard remains paramount.
image source from：npr
