Scholars Respond to White House List of Objectionable Art: A Clash Over Culture in 2025
In August 2025, the Smithsonian Institution found itself at the center of a cultural firestorm when the White House released a list of 20 exhibits and artworks it deemed “objectionable” for their focus on themes like race, slavery, immigration, and gender identity. Titled “President Trump Is Right About the Smithsonian,” the list, published on August 22, 2025, criticized displays across seven Smithsonian museums, accusing them of promoting “woke” and “anti-American” narratives ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary in 2026. This move, part of a broader Trump administration push to align cultural institutions with a vision of “American exceptionalism,” has drawn sharp responses from Smithsonian artists and scholars, who view it as an attack on artistic freedom and historical truth. For US audiences, this controversy raises critical questions about the role of public museums, the boundaries of political influence, and the power of art to provoke and educate. This article explores the White House’s objections, the responses from targeted artists and scholars, and the broader implications for cultural institutions in 2025.
The White House’s List: What’s Deemed “Objectionable”?
The White House’s list, heavily influenced by a recent article in the conservative outlet The Federalist, targets exhibits and artworks across museums like the National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC), the National Portrait Gallery, and the National Museum of the American Latino. Key examples include:
- Rigoberto A. González’s Painting: The 2020 artwork Refugees Crossing the Border Wall into South Texas, a finalist in the National Portrait Gallery’s 2022 competition, depicts an immigrant family navigating the US-Mexico border. The White House criticized it for “commemorating the act of illegally crossing” the border, a claim González refutes, arguing it portrays the harsh realities of immigration.
- Amy Sherald’s Trans Forming Liberty: This painting of a Black trans woman holding a torch was set for display at the National Portrait Gallery but was withdrawn by Sherald before the White House’s list was published, citing concerns over political targeting.
- Hugo Crosthwaite’s Fauci Portrait: A stop-motion animation of Dr. Anthony Fauci, commissioned by the National Portrait Gallery, was flagged for depicting a figure associated with vaccines, a now-politicized issue. Crosthwaite noted the selection seemed arbitrary, likely due to Fauci’s controversial status.
- Ibram X. Kendi’s Scholarship: The White House labeled Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist, a “hardcore woke activist” for his work featured in NMAAHC’s online educational series, which guides readers to “actively deconstruct racism.”
- Other Exhibits: The list critiques displays on LGBTQ+ history, Title IX’s inclusion of transgender athletes, and narratives framing US history as rooted in “colonization” or highlighting Benjamin Franklin’s role as a slave owner.
The White House’s actions follow a letter sent on August 12, 2025, to Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch III, demanding eight museums submit exhibition plans for a “comprehensive review” within 120 days to align with Trump’s cultural directives. President Trump’s executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” accuses the Smithsonian of embracing “divisive, race-centered ideology.”
Artists and Scholars Fight Back
Smithsonian artists and scholars have responded with a mix of defiance, concern, and historical perspective, framing the White House’s list as an attack on free expression and historical accuracy.
- Rigoberto A. González: The Tijuana-born, US-based artist expressed mixed emotions about his inclusion, telling NPR, “I was shocked to see my name listed by the White House. But then I was a little bit glad. My work is political, and that painting in particular was questioning the anti-immigrant sentiment of the time.” He drew parallels to Nazi Germany’s “degenerate art” exhibitions of the 1930s, warning that the list signals an authoritarian agenda to suppress dissenting voices. González, whose painting is held in a private collection, not the Smithsonian, plans to create new work addressing current ICE raids, undeterred by the scrutiny.
- Ibram X. Kendi: The historian and author of How to Be an Antiracist dismissed the “woke activist” label as an attempt to discredit his scholarship. “Those of us who study racism… have been typically described as activists, as opposed to what we are: scholars and intellectuals using research and analysis to try to present the truth,” he told NPR. Kendi compared the White House’s tactics to Jim Crow-era efforts to sanitize slavery’s history, arguing that suppressing his work aims to prevent transformative learning about racism.
- Amy Sherald: Having preemptively canceled her National Portrait Gallery exhibition, Sherald told NPR in April 2025 that Trump’s rhetoric felt like an “erasure” of marginalized histories, describing her art as a “counterterrorist attack” against such efforts. Her withdrawal reflects fears of further targeting, a sentiment echoed by other artists.
- Hugo Crosthwaite: The Tijuana-born artist, whose Fauci portrait was targeted, expressed pride in being included among “great art pieces celebrating diversity.” He suggested the White House’s objection was less about his work’s content and more about Fauci’s politicized image, noting, “They probably haven’t even seen it.” Crosthwaite viewed the attention as a backhanded boost, likely drawing more eyes to his work.
- Historians and Scholars: Sarah Weicksel of the American Historical Association called the White House’s directive “appalling,” arguing it imposes a “highly partisan, politicized version of history” that deprives the public of a complex past. Samuel Redman, a public history expert, noted that the Smithsonian’s rigorous scholarship counters claims of ideological bias, and the president lacks unilateral authority to enforce such changes.
Some artists, like Crosthwaite and González, view their inclusion as a “badge of honor,” reflecting art’s power to provoke, while others fear a chilling effect on creativity. The Smithsonian itself, in a June 2025 statement, reaffirmed its commitment to “scholarly excellence” and freedom from political influence, though it declined to comment directly on the list.
Cultural and Historical Context
The White House’s list echoes historical precedents, notably Nazi Germany’s 1937 “Degenerate Art” exhibition, which targeted works challenging fascist ideals. Commentators like Ja’han Jones of MSNBC and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have drawn parallels, warning of authoritarian tactics to control cultural narratives. In the US, where museums like the Smithsonian serve as public stewards of history, this controversy highlights tensions between free expression and political agendas.
The timing, ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary, amplifies the stakes. The Trump administration’s push for “unifying, historically accurate” narratives contrasts with scholars’ arguments that history must confront uncomfortable truths, like slavery and colonization. Toni Draper, publisher of the Afro-American Newspaper, emphasized, “History is not meant to comfort—it is meant to confront.”
Impact on the Smithsonian and Beyond
The White House’s review, set to conclude in early 2026, could pressure the Smithsonian to alter exhibits, potentially self-censoring to avoid further scrutiny. A post on X from August 15, 2025, by @Phil_Lewis_ reported a “culture of fear” at the Smithsonian, with staff worried about being targeted. This fear is compounded by Trump’s call to oust National Portrait Gallery director Kim Sajet and his criticism of the institution as “OUT OF CONTROL.”
For artists, the list risks stifling creativity. Sherald’s withdrawal of her exhibition suggests a preemptive retreat, while others like González see it as fuel for more provocative work. Scholars like Kendi warn that suppressing diverse narratives undermines public understanding of history, echoing efforts to whitewash slavery’s legacy. The broader art world may face a chilling effect, with galleries and museums hesitant to showcase controversial works.
Why It Matters to US Audiences
For Americans, the Smithsonian controversy touches on core issues of free speech, cultural identity, and the role of public institutions. The targeted exhibits—addressing race, immigration, and gender—reflect the nation’s diverse history, which resonates with audiences seeking representation in public spaces. The White House’s push for a sanitized narrative risks alienating communities whose stories are already underrepresented, as Weicksel noted: “If you don’t see people who look like you… it seems like you are seemingly someone who has no history.”
The debate also highlights the politicization of culture in 2025, with X posts reflecting divided sentiments. Some users support Trump’s call for “positive” history, while others decry it as censorship. This polarization underscores the Smithsonian’s role as a battleground for competing visions of America’s past and future.
What’s Next?
As the Smithsonian conducts its internal review, the outcome remains uncertain. The institution’s Board of Regents and Congress, which oversee its operations, may resist political pressure, but the 120-day deadline looms large. Artists and scholars continue to advocate for unfettered expression, with some, like Crosthwaite, noting that censorship often backfires by amplifying attention to targeted works.
Conclusion
The White House’s list of objectionable Smithsonian art has sparked a fierce defense from artists and scholars, who see it as an assault on truth and creativity. Figures like González, Kendi, Sherald, and Crosthwaite are pushing back, framing their work as essential to understanding America’s complex history. For US audiences, this clash underscores the power of art to challenge narratives and the risks of political overreach into cultural spaces. As the Smithsonian navigates this review, the resilience of its artists and the public’s demand for diverse stories will shape the future of cultural discourse in 2025.