Fact check: What is the process for removing items from the Smithsonian collection?

1. Why the Smithsonian changed course on returns — a policy reboot rooted in ethics

The Smithsonian’s 2022 policy shift emerged from the Ethical Returns Working Group and reflects an explicit institutional acknowledgement that ethical norms evolve and collections stewardship must adapt accordingly; museums were empowered to develop museum-specific criteria for deaccessioning while the Board of Regents retained authority over high-value or high-profile cases ^{[5] [6] [1]}. This policy frames returns not merely as legal transactions but as moral and collaborative gestures toward communities of origin, positioning the Institution to respond to longstanding demands for repatriation and to align practice with contemporary professional standards ^{[1] [7]}. The working group’s research thus becomes the basis for a systematic framework rather than ad hoc decisions ^[5].

2. How the policy operates in practice — museum-level procedures with institutional oversight

Under the new framework, individual Smithsonian museums write procedures for when and how to deaccession items based on ethical grounds, such as questions about provenance or coercive acquisition; those procedures guide staff-level reviews, consultations with stakeholders, and recommendations to leadership, while the Board of Regents steps in for items with significant monetary, research, or historical value ^{[1] [6]}. The decentralized approach allows curators to apply disciplinary norms and community engagement practices, yet the Board’s involvement ensures institutional alignment and public accountability on cases that carry broader reputational or legal implications ^[1]. This dual structure reflects a balance of professional expertise and governance oversight.

3. What the Benin bronzes decision reveals about criteria and precedent

The Board of Regents’ vote to deaccession and return 29 Benin bronzes demonstrates the policy’s capacity to produce concrete repatriations when institutions determine that ethical imperatives outweigh retention, creating a clear precedent for other contested objects ^[2]. The Benin case illustrates how the Smithsonian mobilized the new policy, integrated historical and provenance research, and engaged with source-country requests to effect a transfer—signaling that the policy can result in tangible restitution rather than remaining purely declaratory ^{[2] [7]}. The decision also establishes procedural touchpoints—curatorial review, institutional approval, and public communication—that other cases will likely follow ^[6].

4. The Smithsonian’s public defense against claims of censoring history

In 2025 the Smithsonian issued a statement clarifying that removal or rotation of items follows loan agreements and standard museum practice, not an institutional mandate to excise “divisive” narratives; the statement used examples such as the Greensboro lunch counter to emphasize continued commitment to preserving difficult histories ^[4]. This response directly confronted public and political concerns that the Institution might bow to ideological pressure to sanitize exhibits, asserting instead that curatorial judgment and legal agreements drive display and collection decisions. The clarification seeks to separate routine collection management from political narratives about cultural erasure ^[4].

5. The White House review and potential political overlay on collection decisions

A White House letter in 2025 launched an internal review of Smithsonian exhibitions and materials to assess alignment with “American ideals,” signaling that federal political interests may seek influence over museum narratives, collections use, and public-facing content ^[3]. The review’s scope—covering curatorial processes and collection use—could shape how removal requests and deaccessions are framed or prioritized, especially for items tied to national identity or contested histories. While the Institution’s 2022 policy centers ethics and museum standards, the White House review introduces an additional layer of external scrutiny that could create tensions between professional autonomy and political expectations ^[3].

6. Contrasting institutional autonomy and governmental oversight — competing agendas

The Smithsonian’s policy advances museum-led ethical stewardship, but the 2025 political review reflects a competing agenda emphasizing patriotic narratives and public sensitivities; both positions claim legitimacy—one from professional ethics and provenance research, the other from public accountability and national representation ^{[6] [3]}. This tension raises procedural questions: which criteria prevail in ambiguous cases, how disputes between curators and political actors get resolved, and whether Board governance will act as a buffer or conduit for external pressures. Understanding removal processes requires seeing them as the product of layered institutional, professional, and political forces ^{[5] [3]}.

7. What this means for future deaccessions — transparency, precedent, and contested authority

Going forward, the Smithsonian’s 2022 policy and early repatriations establish a procedural baseline: ethical review, museum-level procedures, stakeholder engagement, and Board oversight. Yet the 2025 review demonstrates that repatriation decisions occur in a contested public arena where political interests and institutional values intersect, making transparency about criteria, timelines, and consultation processes essential to legitimacy. The interplay of precedent (Benin bronzes), professional norms, and potential political oversight will determine whether the Smithsonian’s process is perceived as principled stewardship or subject to competing agendas ^{[2] [3]}.