The Year in Museums: A Relatively Bleak 12 Months With a Few Bright Spots

Since his inauguration (and even before), President Donald Trump has been at the center of nearly every political, social, constitutional, cultural and economic debate, roiling farmers, retailers, manufacturers and even the art market with his on-again, off-again tariffs, attempting to defund or abolish certain federal agencies, denouncing diversity, equity and inclusion programs at private and governmental institutions, promoting unproven claims about vaccine risks, firing federal employees, upending the lives of immigrants and on and on. Museums in the U.S., which in recent years have been the focus of protests by progressive groups opposed to both fossil fuel production and Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip, this year found themselves under attack by his administration for the content of their exhibitions and their DEI policies. While actions by left-leaning groups have tended to be short-lived affairs, such as a one-day “die-in” protest of Sackler family funding at the Metropolitan Museum by photographer Nan Goldin or the tomato soup hurled onto the frames and glass covering paintings at various museums by Just Stop Oil, the threat of federal funding cutoffs represents a far more existential concern for museums across the country.

Erin Harkey, chief executive officer of the Washington, D.C.-based Americans for the Arts, told Observer that “over the past year, the arts community has been hit hard. Major institutions are under pressure, and smaller organizations in rural and working-class communities are losing the grants they depend on. At the same time, we’re seeing growing resistance to creative expression and open dialogue. It adds up to one of the most pivotal moments for the arts in decades, and it threatens the shared fabric that holds us together as a country.”

A notable example is the administration’s effort to dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services, an independent federal agency that, since its creation in 1996, has been the principal source of federal funding for libraries and museums, awarding $266.7 million in grants in 2024. In May, a district court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the agency’s dissolution. Another major source of federal support, the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, both created by Congress in 1965 and responsible for awarding hundreds of millions of dollars in grants in 2024, were ordered to reduce staff by 80 percent and rescind their 2025 grants.

The canceled grants stunned organizations nationwide. “The NEA withdrew our $40,000 grant awarded and announced in February 2025,” said Kathryn Mikesell, executive director of Fountainhead Arts, an artist residency program in Miami, while Harry Philbrick, interim director of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in Philadelphia, noted that “our grant of $30,000 in support of our upcoming William Villalongo exhibition was withdrawn.” The National Council for the Traditional Arts said the cancellation of its $65,000 grant to help produce the 83rd National Folk Festival in Jackson, Mississippi, in 2026 was confusing, according to executive director Blaine Waide, who added that “we’ve been getting funding for the festival from the NEA since 1970.”

All of these actions “bring up the fundamental question of what is art for, to what purposes does it direct itself in society,” said Steven Tepper, president of Hamilton College in Clinton, New York and author of Not Here, Not Now, Not That! “The current efforts to curtail and rein in the art world take the position that art is about celebrating nationalism; it is about depicting a particular view of America; it is about affirming the current government’s values and agenda.”

Going further, David A. Ross, chair of the MFA Art Practice program at the School of Visual Arts and former director of the Whitney, stated that museums are “a site for the contest of values and ideas, and therefore it should come as no surprise that the Trumpian turn to authoritarian rule in this nation and the corresponding danger to free speech and artistic expression would be the primary concern. We are living in a dangerous moment.”

With Democrats in the minority in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, the courts have become the primary venue for challenging the administration’s museum cuts. Lawsuits filed by attorneys general for Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin have temporarily blocked the dismantling of the Institute of Museum and Library Services. In March, the American Civil Liberties Union filed Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts on behalf of several arts organizations, including Rhode Island Latino Arts and the New York-based National Queer Theater, challenging a White House executive order stating that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology,” arguing that the policy violates First Amendment rights.

Reduced or eliminated federal funding has coincided with the departures of Smithsonian Institution museum directors. After the White House released an executive order titled Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History asserting that “a revisionist movement seeks to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light,” Kevin Young was forced out as director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture and Kim Sajet was fired as director of the National Portrait Gallery. (She was soon hired as director of the Milwaukee Art Museum.)

Perhaps out of concern for similar repercussions, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History removed references to President Trump’s two impeachments from an exhibition in July, and shortly after Trump’s inauguration, the National Gallery ended its diversity program. Over the summer, artist Amy Sherald, whose retrospective was scheduled to open in September at the National Portrait Gallery, withdrew the exhibition after learning from gallery officials that one of her paintings, a 2024 work titled Trans Forming Liberty, portraying a Black trans woman in a Statue of Liberty pose, had raised “concerns.” The Baltimore Museum of Art quickly stepped in to present “American Sublime,” which previously had been on view at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and the Whitney in New York City.

Other artists have grown frustrated by the sweeping politicization of cultural life. “We have become more tribal than ever, and that reflects in donations and memberships to cultural institutions,” said Dean Mitchell, a painter in Kansas City, Missouri. “Some collectors are not willing to purchase an artist’s work if they don’t believe in their political views.” He added that “it is important that different voices are heard in the cultural landscape, especially those who feel their voices are marginalized. It’s the only way to bridge understanding.”

What some call the Trump Effect includes controversial removals of artwork that are labeled censorship by critics. In February, police officers “arrested” five photographs by Sally Mann on view at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth, claiming the nude images of her children were child pornography. Charges were dropped, and the works were returned. In October, artworks deemed “political in nature” were removed from the exhibition “Hold My Hand in Yours” at the Frederick R. Weisman Museum of Art at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California. Protests by students and faculty led to the resignation of museum director Andrea Gyorody.

Another example is the transfer of control of the John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art from Florida State University to New College of Florida by order of Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, who has sought to transform New College from a moderately progressive institution into one aligned with his more conservative agenda. The museum takeover prompted several current and prospective donors to withdraw support.

“America’s museums, like universities, foundations and other charitable institutions coast to coast, are understandably apprehensive about possible reprisals for the mere exercise of free expression,” Maxwell L. Anderson, president of the Atlanta-based Souls Grown Deep Foundation and former director of the Dallas Art Museum, told Observer. “Self-censorship is an invisible but pernicious result of this climate.” He worries that the current political climate will affect the policies and actions of institutions “for years to come.”

Beyond politics, museum news in 2025 was notably bleak. Two French museums (the Diderot Museum and the Louvre, both in Paris) suffered break-ins, and 1,000 historic artifacts, including jewelry, daguerreotypes and Native American baskets, were stolen from the Oakland Museum of California. The Speed Museum in Louisville, the Pacific Tsunami Museum in Hilo, Hawaii, the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art in Los Angeles, the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and the Guggenheim in New York announced layoffs tied to budget shortfalls. Several French museums announced ticket price increases. The Whitney canceled a May performance of No Aesthetic Outside My Freedom: Mourning, Militancy, and Performance after its director told the audience that anyone supporting Israel should leave. More puzzling was the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s decision to rename itself the Philadelphia Art Museum, which drew harsh criticism.

It wasn’t all bad, though. Under the heading of second chances, James Rondeau returned from a voluntary leave of absence to resume his role as director of the Art Institute of Chicago. In May, the museum’s board accepted his explanation that stripping off his clothes aboard an international flight the previous month resulted from mixing alcohol with prescription medications. More positively, the National Gallery of Art announced plans to share objects from its collections with rural institutions nationwide, bringing rarely seen works to audiences who might never travel to the nation’s capital. The Brooklyn Museum, which in February announced plans to lay off 10 percent of its staff due to a $10 million budget deficit, avoided doing so thanks to a $2.5 million appropriation from the New York City Council. And after the longest government shutdown in U.S. history ended, America’s arts and culture institutions reopened their doors smoothly. If memory serves, there were also more than a few exhibitions that drew widespread accolades, and some museums paused increases to their admission fees. Silver linings.

More in Museums

• Hamburger Bahnhof’s Sam Bardaouil On Co-Leading a Museum in Flux

• Could Almaty’s Contemporary Art Museum Mark a New Era for Kazakhstan?

• What the National Gallery’s Closure Says About the Politics of Culture in America

• Mapping Asia Society Texas’ Place in Houston’s Global Art Identity

• How Museums Are Opening Their Doors to Visitors With Vision Impairment