Public History Under Attack: An Interview with Jerome de Groot
Over the past decade – perhaps more than ever – public history has become weaponized by the populist right around the world. In this interview, Jerome de Groot discusses how political shifts, funding cuts, and culture wars are redefining our relationship with the past.
History in the public sphere is never neutral. This is becoming increasingly apparent as right-wing politics and culture wars gain influence, education faces defunding, and the way history is researched, taught and interpreted shifts along with it.
We spoke with Jerome de Groot, editor of a special issue on Conservative Public History, about the growing challenges facing the field and the new approaches shaping public history today.
De Gruyter Brill: What is ‘Conservative Public History’ (CPH) and how is it different from existing labels like ‘revisionism’ or ‘denialism’?
Jerome de Groot: We were challenged repeatedly about the idea of ‘conservative’ public history and I think with good reason. But we wanted to be provocative, and also to have a term that was useful to describe what was happening in various global contexts. So, this is the term we have used but we are very aware it can be debated.
“Conservative Public History is a praxis, an ideology, and an approach; a template for activism and a mode for engaging with the past.”
For us, the term refers to a set of coherent practices rather than an intellectual attitude. We see around the world the same playbook in terms of attacks on certain groups or ideas. For us, CPH is something that can be defined and challenged. It is also something that we need to recognize as a group of scholars. So, rather than revisionism, this is a set of practices that are emotive, powerful, and increasingly recognized. As we outline in our introduction, it is “a praxis, an ideology, and an approach; a template for activism and a mode for engaging with the past”.
DGB: What first drew you into this subject?
JdG: With some colleagues, I created an online international network entitled ‘Histories at Risk’ that sought to offer support and solidarity for those working around the world on history that was contested, difficult or risky in some way. It had become clear that working in the field of history at the moment has become increasingly challenging. This was prompted in the UK by the toppling of the Colston statue in Bristol in 2020 and the response to this, and in the US by the increasing impact of right-wing politics and culture wars. Our network looked to provide an area for people to talk about their work and the challenges they had experienced. We had sessions focusing on countries like Iran, Eritrea, Brazil, Russia, India, Japan, China, and on sessions like antiracist Archaeology. The network demonstrated that around the world public history was being increasingly weaponized by the populist right.
DGB: At what point did the idea for a special issue in International Public History take shape?
JdG: We wanted to showcase work from around the world. We also wanted to have pieces that were open-access, relatively short, and very ‘now’ – the point was to think about this as a snapshot of what was happening in 2025 and to take that as a kind of ‘report’ and a call to action.
“The sheer extent to which history has been weaponized and traduced in the past decade around the world is astonishing.”
DGB: What was the most surprising thing you learned while undertaking this research collaboration?
JdG: It isn’t surprising, but the sheer extent to which history has been weaponized and traduced in the past decade around the world is astonishing. We worked with scholars from around the world and each of them had a particular story to tell about how their discipline was at risk, from Russia to Afghanistan, from Spain to Mexico.
DGB: How did this project change the way you think about your field more broadly?
JdG: The work we have showcased here made me think much more profoundly about the activist aspects of public history. I was at the National Council on Public History (NCPH) in Montreal in 2025 when Donald Trump announced his measures against the Smithsonian, and it was clear to everyone there that public history would have to become much more directly politicised and activist. This has happened to an extent and the work that has been done is impressive. But throughout our areas we need to recognize that the structures we possibly rely on are under threat. We also have to offer support and solidarity to our colleagues around the world who are working in extremely challenging conditions, often under threat of violence or death.
“We have to offer support and solidarity to our colleagues around the world who are working in extremely challenging conditions, often under threat of violence or death.”
DGB: You discuss Trump’s March 2025 Executive Order, ‘Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History’, as a ‘blueprint’ for the whole phenomenon. What made that single document such a clarifying case for the framework you’d already been developing across very different national contexts?
JdG: That document for us outlines everything that CPH stands for, so is more a template than anything else. Trump’s work with conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation is also a clear inspiration for right-wing thought and practice around the world. So that document is a symptom but also a driving force behind the kinds of practice we are describing.
DGB: What makes Public History especially important to study now?
JdG: In the past year the United States has closed various historical parks, defunded education and sought to change the ways in which history is studied, promoted, and funded. Right-wing and populist groups around the world have begun to use history in public in a programmatic way to deny the rights of those they disagree with. In my country, the UK, there is increasing denial of colonial violence and an attack on plurality and multiculturalism. The Council of Europe has warned of democratic backsliding and a loss of civic understanding because of challenges to history teaching and history making.
History in public is not neutral, and, whilst it never has been, the challenge to our practice and disciplines is clear. It is more dangerous than ever around the world to present public history and to challenge normative and conservative assumptions about the past.
Check out all contributions from the special section (Open Access)
[Title Image by gutaper/iStock/Getty Images Plus]