Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Are there any notable instances of item removal from the Smithsonian in recent years?
Executive Summary
Recent reporting shows multiple, distinct instances of item removal or transfer at Smithsonian museums in 2024–2025, with disputed removals from the National Museum of African American History and Culture and an acknowledged transfer of ancient Zidanku Silk Manuscript fragments from the National Museum of Asian Art to Chinese institutions. Coverage differs sharply on intent and process: some outlets describe removals as part of a political review and possible purge, while the Smithsonian describes routine returns, loans, and an ethical-returns policy guiding transfers; the factual record includes both lender complaints and formal transfers [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
1. How a Political Review Sparked Accusations of a “Purge”
Reporting in April–August 2025 links an administration-initiated review of Smithsonian exhibits to allegations that artifacts were removed from the African American museum, with journalists and advocates framing some actions as politically driven. NBC Washington and The Independent reported removals including books and a Bible used in civil rights demonstrations, and described administration officials reviewing content to align exhibits with presidential priorities; those stories portray a narrative of erasure and frustration among critics [1] [3]. These reports are dated April 27 and August 20, 2025, showing escalation from initial reports to broader claims over months [1] [3].
2. Smithsonian’s Denials and Procedural Explanations
The Smithsonian publicly countered some removal claims by emphasizing standard museum practices—loans ending, object rotations for preservation, and lender-driven returns—asserting that items were not being erased but managed under existing rules. Axios’ April 28, 2025 report quotes Smithsonian statements insisting returns and rotations are routine and that exhibit changes reflected curatorial considerations rather than a directive to remove specific histories [2]. This institutional response frames the same events as administrative stewardship, not a politically motivated purge, and points to preexisting policies governing object loans and conservation [2].
3. Lenders’ Complaints: “Unjust” Removals and Numbers
Independent reporting in May 2025 documented lender accusations that at least 32 objects were removed from the African American History Museum, with lenders characterizing some removals as unjust and questioning possible political influence. The May 19 piece highlights concrete counts and lender statements, introducing quantified allegations that contrast with Smithsonian assurances of routine practice [8]. That lenders—entities or individuals who loaned artifacts—are publicly contesting Smithsonian actions adds a layer of legal and ethical complexity, elevating the dispute beyond media framing to potential contractual contention [8].
4. A Clear Example: The Zidanku Silk Manuscripts Transfer
Separately, the National Museum of Asian Art acknowledged a documented deaccession and transfer of 2,300-year-old Zidanku Silk Manuscript fragments to Chinese institutions in May 2025, presented as a collaborative repatriation and stewardship decision. Official announcements in mid-May explain the transfer as consistent with ethical returns frameworks and strengthened international collaboration, and the Smithsonian described the action as a deliberate, policy-driven transfer rather than a covert removal [4] [5]. This case illustrates a transparent, policy-guided return contrasted with the more contentious African American museum controversy [4] [5].
5. The Policy Context: Shared Stewardship and Ethical Returns
The Smithsonian’s Shared Stewardship and Ethical Returns Policy—adopted in 2022 and cited in 2025 reporting—provides the formal framework allowing repatriation, transfers, and stewardship collaborations that guided the Zidanku decision and can underlie contested returns. Coverage emphasizes that the policy sets procedures for requests and ethical considerations, framing some transfers as procedurally appropriate and consultative rather than unilateral removals [6]. The existence of this policy complicates accusations of arbitrary action: it confirms that institution-led returns are part of an institutional commitment to ethical custodianship [6].
6. Contrasting Timelines and Narratives: Facts vs. Interpretations
Comparing sources by date shows an evolving story: early April–May 2025 articles documented initial removals and lender complaints, while later August reporting broadened allegations into a narrative of an administration-led purge of exhibits. The Zidanku transfer was reported mid-May as an explicated policy action, separate from the African American museum disputes [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [8]. The factual record thus contains both acknowledged transfers under policy and contested removals where intent and process are disputed, meaning claims of a sweeping Smithsonian purge are not uniformly supported by the documented evidence provided here [1] [3] [4] [8].
7. What’s Missing and Why It Matters for Accountability
Public reporting highlights gaps: specific inventories, loan agreement details, and internal Smithsonian records explaining each contested removal are not fully presented in these articles, limiting independent verification. Without access to itemized documentation and contractual evidence, assessments rely on institutional statements and lender claims, which produce divergent interpretations and possible agendas—administration critics emphasize erasure risks, while the Smithsonian and some reports highlight stewardship and returns procedures [2] [8] [6]. These omissions shape the dispute and underscore the need for transparent records to resolve competing factual claims [1] [2] [8].