Across the U.S. cultural sector, the abrupt closure of the Smithsonian Institution's diversity office has sent shockwaves through the art community. This move follows President Donald Trump’s January 20, 2021 executive order titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” With the signing of this executive order, which deems diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as "illegal and immoral," both the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art have announced the disbandment of their DEI efforts.
Receiving approximately two-thirds of its $1 billion annual budget from federal sources, the Smithsonian's decision to shutter its diversity office came as no surprise, aimed presumably at aligning with the new administration's directives. The Smithsonian’s spokesperson emphasized, “Our commitment remains to workforce excellence and visitor accessibility,” indicating intentions to retain focus on inclusion even without the specific DEI apparatus.
DEI departments at U.S. museums emerged alongside growing calls for accountability and increased diversity within the cultural sector. Although such initiatives have long existed, their prominence surged significantly only over the last five years, shaped by the broader societal push for more inclusive practices across varied organizations. DEI offices are responsibility for promoting equitable access to museum resources and ensuring diverse representation within curated exhibitions. Such practices often include multilingual wall texts and resources accessible to those with disabilities, enhancing the experience for all visitors.
The timeline of these DEI developments reveals significant shifts beginning around 2016 when the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art hired its first chief diversity officer, Rod Bigelow, to combat racial disparities within staffing. Bigelow, reflecting on the widespread challenge, remarked, “From hiring diverse staff to deciding who makes up advisory committees to what’s curated—everything must be done to secure long-term momentum.” This hiring trend accelerated post-2020, as the killing of George Floyd brought national focus to systemic racism, leading many institutions to pledge more substantial commitments to diversity.
But Trump’s executive order marks the latest chapter of backlash against these progressive movements. By categorizing DEI initiatives as"radical and wasteful," the President’s actions initiated immediate changes at federally funded institutions such as the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art, which has already removed DEI-related terminology from its website.
Some skeptics assert this executive order could jeopardize meaningful progress made by museums. An ACLU spokesperson criticized the move, stating it was “a deliberate effort to obfuscate and weaponize civil rights laws.” Many observers worry about the chilling effect this could have on museum practices, especially if the current momentum toward diversity faces institutional setbacks.
Despite its impact on federally funded museums, Trump’s executive order does not reach the majority of institutions across the United States. Many museums, though reliant on government grants, are managed independently and remain insulate from direct influence of the federal mandates. Nonetheless, the closing of prominent DEI offices demonstrates potential ripple effects throughout the sector, where budget reallocations or shifts can sway policy and institutional commitment to diversity.
The art world is now at crossroads, debating the efficacy and longevity of DEI movements within cultural centers. Conversations surrounding visibility and representation have taken center stage, and the dismantling of DEI offices sharpens the spotlight on these conversations. Experts continue to seek clarity on how these closures will affect public programming and accessibility within iconic institutions like the Smithsonian, home to pivotal resources marking the nation's cultural, historical, and artistic legacy.
Trump’s DEI order has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum, with concerns mounting over reverting progress toward racial equity, formerly championed even by some Republican leaders. The ramifications of such closures pose questions about the future of federal funding and whether new leadership after Trump might reinstate support for DEI initiatives.
Yet, there is hope within the chaos. Many institutions have built strong DEI frameworks and continue to work toward rectifying longstanding disparities, making strides to keep these priorities at the forefront of their missions, independent of government mandates. The emphasis on anti-racism and inclusivity remains strong, as evidenced by Rod Bigelow’s remarks from his 2020 advocacy to embed diversity at various organizational levels.
This swift closure could very well reshape the future of DEI within museums, but the broader battle for representation and inclusivity may continue on many fronts—an affirmation of conviction by cultural advocates eager to push for accountability and equality. With much hanging in the balance, remaining diligent could pave the way for renewed focus on these pressing issues.