Inteview with Sarah Weicksel, Executive Director of the American Historical Association, on the current state and future of archives in the United States
In recent years, archives have become the focus of political and technological debates. This development is highly relevant for the GHI Washington and its researchers whose work depends on reliable access to historical sources. Sarah Beringer, Benjamin Burtz, and Axel Jansen from the GHI Washington spoke with Sarah Weicksel, Executive Director of the American Historical Association (AHA) about the current state and future of archives in the United States.
Over the past decade, archives worldwide have faced mounting challenges such as digitization, media obsolescence, budget constraints, and increasing political scrutiny. In the U.S., these pressures have been compounded by heightened polarization and shifts in federal policy. How has the AHA observed changes in access to archival materials in the U.S. over the last decade? Is there a longer historical pattern to be observed?
Weicksel: Access to archival materials in the U.S. has increased in the last decade, at least in terms of federal archives. That has to do in part with the increasing digitization of materials, which is allowing people who live outside of the Washington, D.C. area to gain greater access. However, there is a significant amount of material that has yet to be digitized.
Thanks to new equipment, they are going to be able to digitize up to ten times as many records per year. That is an exciting development for the National Archives. The real challenge, however, is the budget constraints that you have pointed to, because our National Archives system has been severely and chronically underfunded for close to three decades. It is in great need of an influx of funding, not only to support its infrastructure and its digitization efforts, but also to hire enough staff to process the records, assist researchers, and do in-house research as well. That is one of the major challenges that we are seeing and it is part of a longer historical pattern of underfunding federal archives.
There are two other things to consider, in terms of political influence. Current compliance with the Presidential Records Act is going to be a problem for researchers decades from now, when historians try to look back at the 2020s. In 2020–2021, the AHA was part of a lawsuit intended to ensure that the outgoing Trump Administration was fulfilling all the requirements of the Presidential Records Act and preserving materials.
Another thing happening now is the use of software like Signal, which is not in compliance with the Federal Records Act that governs all agencies. But both the Presidential and Federal Records Acts are difficult to enforce, especially in a digital age. Part of the question, then, is whether the American public and researchers from around the world will have access to a full and complete accounting of governmental actions and records, both through the executive branch and throughout other branches of government.
Recent changes in federal information infrastructure, including the removal of certain web content and leadership turnover at institutions like the National Archives have raised concerns about long-term preservation of public records. How do such developments affect the credibility and independence of historical scholarship in the U.S.? What is the role of archives as democratic institutions, especially in times of political transition?
Weicksel: One of the things that I have really tried to emphasize, and that I think is essential for the public to understand, is that we need to make a distinction between presidential administrations and federal government employees. Federal employees at the Library of Congress and the National Archives are career archivists and career librarians who hold a wide range of roles. They are committed public servants working to ensure the preservation of records, the integrity of programming, and public access to records.
When the Archivist of the United States was dismissed and other career staff were pushed out, we lost decades of experience from the National Archives. At the same time, many people remain who are continuing to keep things running, and that is important to understand.
In our American Lesson Plan study, the AHA found that secondary school teachers use teaching resources and primary sources from the National Archives, the Library of Congress, and the Smithsonian Institution extensively in their classrooms. They do so because they see them as nonpartisan, reliable sources of primary evidence—and they are. However, whenever a presidential administration heavily politicizes history and actively pushes back against the physical evidence presented in documents, the public begins to worry about the integrity of our federal institutions and the resources they provide.
Regarding archives and democracy, archives are essential. People’s ability to learn their nation’s history and to grapple with its complexity, which is currently under threat, is essential to the health of a democracy. You have to understand where you have been to define where you want to go.
Archives are also essential for transparency. In a democracy, the public needs to be able to hold elected officials accountable. That requires free and unfettered access to materials produced during each presidential administration. As we discussed, the Presidential Records Act is designed as a check on presidential power. The materials generated through the work of presidents and Congress belong to the American people. That part is straightforward. The complicated part is the enforcement of records retention policies. At the same time, if archives are essential democratic institutions, we must also ensure that the way those archives are constructed is transparent and that we are capturing the entirety of U.S. government actions, not just a subsection.
You mentioned the growing public debate about how history is taught, narrated, and used in political discourse. How has the relationship between historians and the media evolved in recent years? Is there a growing conversation within the AHA about the role of history and historians in public life, especially in the context of misinformation, social media, and popular historical narratives?
of the U.S. Congress and the world’s largest library, it houses millions of books, maps, photographs, manuscripts, and audio and film collections.
Weicksel: This is a great question for the AHA. We were founded in 1884 and chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1889 to promote historical studies, which includes promoting the role of history in American public life. This has been central to our mission for over 140 years, and it is something we think about a great deal.
One initiative we have worked on in recent years is a congressional briefings program. These briefings bring together three or four historians who are experts on particular topics, to provide nonpartisan, evidence-based historical context for issues currently being considered by the legislature or that are likely to arise. We do not recommend policy; we provide historical context.
One important approach in terms of engaging the public while maintaining scholarly rigor is to learn from public historians. That is the background I come from, having worked at the Smithsonian Institution. Museum professionals do the same depth of research to mount an exhibition as one would to write an academic article, but they have different end products and ways of communicating with the public. The challenge is taking complexity and distilling it into a few sentences that help people understand something more deeply. We need more interaction across the different professional contexts in which historians work, and more learning from one another about how to write engagingly and reach audiences beyond the classroom and academic publishing.
How does the AHA think historians should respond to the growing danger of misinformation, especially as artificial intelligence enables people to create alternative historical narratives that contradict public records?
Weicksel: Countering misinformation is central to our work. People need to understand what actually happened in the past. Artificial intelligence has expanded both the volume of misinformation and the ways people encounter it. It is no longer just about media literacy and evaluating sources, but also about AI literacy, including text and images.
In an era of deepfakes and AI-generated materials, it is essential that historians teaching at both the K–12 and college levels incorporate AI literacy into their instruction. While some may prefer to avoid AI entirely, it is essential to help students learn how to research, ask questions, and consult multiple sources to corroborate evidence. The habits of mind of historians—consulting multiple forms of evidence and providing context—are essential skills in the AI-influenced environment we now inhabit.
What role can international collaboration play in safeguarding the integrity of historical sources in the U.S. and elsewhere? Is the AHA collaborating internationally, particularly with archives?
Weicksel: We collaborate internationally, for example with the GHI, and with historical associations in other countries. These conversations focus on threats to archival and historic preservation, including resource constraints, legislation, and policies that affect access.
Although different countries use different mechanisms to preserve national records, we share concerns about policy compliance and access. Collaboration can help legislators understand how essential archives are not only for the public and for military personnel seeking service records, but also for international researchers studying democracy or transnational histories. Making the case for the importance of archives helps us to advocate for adequate funding.
How are U.S. archives and cultural institutions adapting their strategies in response to political and economic pressures? Are there signs of shifts in collecting priorities, and what support mechanisms does the AHA advocate to ensure sustainability?
Weicksel: I have not personally seen a shift in collecting priorities, which I see as positive. Institutions are collecting new kinds of materials, as they always do when administrations change or significant events occur, such as materials related to January 6 or current ICE operations. There have also been efforts to document activities like the DOGE service, which are complicated by issues such as the use of digital communication apps like Signal. The larger question concerns programming and public-facing materials, and whether institutions may feel the need to become more cautious about addressing certain topics due to increased scrutiny. The concern is whether some topics may be avoided because of potential political consequences. Nevertheless, historians, archivists, and public historians are guided by professional standards and we value one another’s expertise. I believe staff will continue to produce excellent historical materials.
Ensuring sustainability ultimately returns to the funding issue and chronic underfunding at both the federal and state levels. In Iowa, for example, the historical society is being moved from Iowa City to Des Moines for purported funding reasons, creating accessibility problems. The Seattle branch of the National Archives faced a proposed closure in 2020 that would have relocated records far from the Pacific Northwest, affecting many people, including members of Indigenous nations that rely on treaty documents housed there. The AHA joined a successful lawsuit to prevent that closure. The building, however, still needs funding for infrastructure improvements. Advocacy involves both arguing for increased funding and taking legal action to ensure continued access.
Finally, do you see new challenges for international researchers conducting archival research in the U.S., such as visa processes or access permissions? How can institutions like the GHI and the AHA help maintain and strengthen transatlantic research mobility?
Weicksel: Research mobility is central. From the AHA’s perspective, concerns have been more preemptive than based on direct experience of restrictions. Scholars are worried about investing time and money in research trips without certainty about entry. Some have redirected their research elsewhere, and similar concerns are affecting conference attendance.
Graduate students, particularly international students, are concerned about traveling abroad for research and being able to return to the United States to complete their programs. There are challenges both in coming to the U.S. and in leaving and returning. Maintaining transatlantic research mobility requires institutions like the GHI and the AHA to be places scholars can turn to for guidance and support, and to publicly emphasize how essential international research and scholarly exchange are to historical scholarship and to society as a whole.
The interview was published in German in the research magazine ‘Weltweit vor Ort’.
Sarah Weicksel is the Executive Director of the American Historical Association. She previously worked as the AHA’s Director of Research & Publications and as a project historian at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History. She serves on the U.S. National Archives Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee.
OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Max Weber Stiftung (15. Mai 2026). Inteview with Sarah Weicksel, Executive Director of the American Historical Association, on the current state and future of archives in the United States. [gab_log] Geisteswissenschaft als Beruf. Abgerufen am 6. Juni 2026 von https://doi.org/10.58079/167yk
