In early February, President Trump announced plans to create a “National Garden of American Heroes” featuring statues of 250 of the “greatest Americans who ever lived.” While this initiative is new, the project of commemorating great Americans has long been a fraught one. For some time, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation has been leading efforts to “transform” our monuments landscape.

The Mellon Foundation is the “nation’s largest supporter of the arts and the humanities,” and is evaluating historic monuments through the lens of power dynamics like critical theory.

For example, the foundation partnered with Monument Lab, another Philadelphia-based nonprofit, to produce a “National Monument Audit,” which laments that “[t]here are no US-born Latinx, Asian, Pacific Islander, or self-identified LGBTQ+ people” on the list of the top 50 individuals most often portrayed through our monuments. The Mellon Foundation also committed to giving $500 million to transform “the nation’s commemorative landscape to ensure our collective histories are more completely and accurately represented.”

The broader conflict over monuments doesn’t simply concern individual legacies (though we certainly owe gratitude to figures like Abraham Lincoln and George Washington). Rather, it highlights a more fundamental disagreement over how we should view America. 

Is the ethos of America best represented by the equitable portrayal of identity characteristics? Or is it our unifying maxim enshrined in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, which points to our common human dignity and capacity for self-government? How we answer that question informs us and shapes how we evaluate our monuments.

Mellon Foundation Initiatives

The Mellon Foundation sees equity as central to the depiction of America. In 2020, the Foundation decided to center its grantmaking initiatives on social justice, with the goal of influencing cultural, public, and private education. Since then, its grants and initiatives have included:

• $5 million in 2022 to the Theater Offensive, Inc, an organization dedicated to “present[ing] liberating art by, for, and about queer and trans people of color that transcends artistic boundaries, celebrates cultural abundance, and dismantles oppression.”

• $15 million in 2020 to Rutgers University to support the “establishment of an institute for the advanced study of race and social justice.”

• $5 million in 2020 to the University of Wisconsin at Madison for “Anti-racism Literacy in the Sciences and Medicine.”

• $7.5 million in 2022 to the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund; the National Trust owns James Madison’s Montpelier and 26 other historic sites.

• $110,000 in 2022 to the Allied Media Projects for EspicyNipples, a Puerto Rican transfeminist network that “documents the lives of members of the TILQAPBG+ community.” 

Of course, this isn’t a comprehensive list of grants, and some of Mellon’s donations likely went to less controversial causes, especially given the sheer magnitude of its budget. But these reflect Mellon’s broad attempt to use its grants to further “social justice.”

In 2023, the Mellon Foundation joined the Alice Walton Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and Pilot Philanthropy in a “Leadership in Art Museums” initiative, committing over “$11M in funding to museums to increase racial equity in [museum] leadership roles...” As part of this effort, the Mellon Foundation funded a Highlands (James Monroe’s home) postdoctoral research fellow who said 2020 marked a “racial and social” reckoning at museums that have long been seen as “preservers of white supremacist versions of the past.” 

Mellon doesn’t just influence and support official museum employees. It has also aided in the establishment of a Council of Descendant Advisors, which includes members whose ancestors were enslaved at Highlands. The council operates by “a rubric of best practices established by the National Summit on Teaching Slavery.” It recommends approaching American history through the lens of “restorative justice,” contending that “institutions that interpret slavery” shouldn’t simply “discuss the humanity and contributions of the enslaved.” Rather, the rubric says, the discussion of slavery must also “unpack and interrogate white privilege and supremacy and systemic racism.”

This “rubric” was developed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund (which has received multiple grants from the Mellon Foundation) and The Montpelier Foundation (which operates James Madison’s Montpelier). It defines descendants to include people “who feel connected to the work the institution is doing, whether or not they know of a genealogical connection.” In 2022, this definition enabled the Montpelier Descendants Committee (MDC) to take over Montpelier’s board—even though the main commonality between members of the MDC is political, not biological. Just two of the MDC’s 20 board nominees listed ancestry traceable to Montpelier, and only one of those two was ultimately selected for the board. 

This has led people like Montpelier board member Mary Alexander (who is a descendant of Paul Jennings, James Madison’s valet, but not a member of the MDC) to argue that the MDC should be disbanded. Specifically, she has said that it is “a Black history and Black rights organization that could [not] care less about James Madison and his legacy.”

Mellon’s National Monument Audit

In 2020, the Mellon Foundation launched a $250 million Monuments Project, and it increased that funding to $500 million in 2023. As mentioned previously, the project aims to transform “the nation’s commemorative landscape to ensure our collective histories are more completely and accurately represented.”

The National Monument Audit referenced above was developed to inform this project, and came to several key findings:

• Monuments have always changed

• The figures depicted in America’s monuments are overwhelmingly white and male

• American monuments most commonly “reflect war and conquest”

• “[T]he story of the United States as told by our current monuments misrepresents our history” 

In other words, from their perspective, since memorials have always changed, we are justified in removing our monuments, “ultimately transforming their physical contexts and altering the ways that people are able to engage with them.” The American story is one of violence and oppression, and replacing our monuments is a way to supplant the principles of the Founding. Our core principles shouldn’t be derived from the inherent equal dignity of every human being; rather, they say, we should aim at inclusivity and equity—that is, equality of outcome when it comes to race, gender, and sexual orientation/identity.

The report implicitly adopts a post-modern outlook, viewing history and society through the lens of oppression and conflict. It defines a monument as “a statement of power and presence in public,” and contends that monuments “function as platforms for civic power.” Monuments are significant because they “make our society’s values visible.” 

The report hints at the idea of America as an inherently violent nation that favors violence over love, peace, and care. To quote: 

Violence is the most dominant subject of commemoration across the nation. Thirty-three percent of conventional monuments in the data set, inclusive of memorials, include mentions of war…statues of generals immortalized on horseback with cannons and weaponry, or long memorials roll calls of local fallen soldiers carved into stone. 

Interpreting monuments of generals and fallen soldiers as endorsements of violence seems, at best, uncharitable.

While wars are lamentable, individual men and women are tested during war’s raging and aftermath, and some people meet that test with admirable acts of valor. On occasion, loved ones and fellow citizens seek to honor those acts or ameliorate their grief through a memorial. Far from commemorating violence, then, monuments to soldiers and generals often serve as a testimony to bravery, courage, and loss. 

Nor should it be surprising that many of our monuments depict soldiers and battles. Wars are momentous events in any nation’s history—not just America’s. 

In the broader context of human history, America cannot be considered a particularly violent or war-torn country. And of the wars America has fought, the deadliest of all was the Civil War, which, at painful cost, ended slavery and demonstrated America’s commitment to the principle that “all men are created equal” despite our not always living up to that ideal.

The report seems to imply that we Americans should not be so concerned with the maxim “all men are created equal,” but with the pieties of inclusivity and equity. Rather than the American story and American heroes belonging to Americans committed to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, modern citizens can only feel that patriotic ownership if their physical characteristics and sexual orientations are proportionally represented. 

The audit lists the individuals most often depicted in our monuments, criticizing the fact that the list is dominated by “white, male, and wealthy” figures and contains no “self-identified LGBTQ+ people.” 

Yet Abraham Lincoln, whose legacy is the defense of equality and the Declaration of Independence, holds the preeminent place on this list. What individual and legacy are to take his place?

In supplanting Lincoln, we wouldn’t just be jeopardizing the American principle of equality—we’d also be jeopardizing historical accuracy itself. While “inclusivity” and “accuracy” are often assumed to be a natural pairing in exhortations for revisionist history, we cannot bend history to make accuracy and inclusivity align perfectly. 

To require, for example, that there be as many monuments of Patsy Mink (the first Asian-American congresswoman) and Harvey Milk (a gay rights activist) as there are of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington would be nothing less than a distortion of history. The subsequent monument landscape would not be both “inclusive” and “accurate,” but would rather sacrifice human equality for equity and truth for inclusivity.

This isn’t to say that all attempts to reevaluate our history’s telling are unmerited. For example, Confederate monuments pose a thorny issue that can be approached on a case-by-case basis. But recalibration can be done wisely or poorly, honestly or disingenuously, depending on the motivations of those leading the charge. 

Mount Vernon and Montpelier provide contrasting examples. 

The Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association has successfully incorporated slavery in a balanced and matter-of-fact manner that highlights everyday individuals, both free and enslaved. In doing so, they haven’t strayed from their core obligation to remember George Washington. Visitors leave with a substantive understanding of Washington’s accomplishments and why he should remain first in our hearts. 

In contrast, Montpelier currently lacks any exhibits dedicated to Madison and his contributions. Some of the exhibits on slavery are informative and compelling, but others are “gotcha” efforts (noting, for example, that Madison never freed his slaves but omitting that Washington did) aimed at tainting the founders, the Constitution, and America itself. 

While both Mount Vernon and Montpelier have moved to telling a more “inclusive” history, their efforts are worlds apart in both motivation and results—and only Mount Vernon’s tale is accurate and comprehensive.

The Educator’s Guide

Along with its National Monument Audit report, the Mellon Foundation published an educator’s guide for “youth, teachers, artists, activists, cultural workers, and you.” In the introductory lesson, participants are asked to analyze the top list of individuals portrayed by U.S. monuments and then consider the question, “What does this list say about gender, class, race, and sexuality in the American story?” The guide then suggests readers develop “Calls to Action” that could be understood by a ten-year old.

The educator’s guide offers further insight into the company the Mellon Foundation keeps. It directs readers to the Zinn Education Project, which provides materials based on Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. Zinn was a radical Marxist who claimed his objective was to bring about a “quiet revolution” in America. 

In 2019, (according to Peter Wood, the president of the National Association of Scholars) the Zinn Education Project “began to offer assistance with ‘Teaching the New York Times 1619 Project.’” Featured among the Zinn Education Project’s resources is a “1619 Project booklet.” 

The 1619 Project contends that slavery isn’t just our country’s original sin but our origin. Yet its outlandish claims—for example, that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery—have been debunked by reputable scholars across the political spectrum. 

In one letter to the Times, five preeminent scholars wrote that they were

dismayed at some of the factual errors in the project and the closed process behind it. These errors, which concern major events, cannot be described as interpretation or “framing.” They are matters of verifiable fact, which are the foundation of both honest scholarship and honest journalism. They suggest a displacement of historical understanding by ideology. 

Sadly, inaccurate material like this has been widely promulgated. According to Wood, “the nation’s largest teachers’ union, the NEA, worked with the Times to distribute copies of the 1619 Project, and to this end worked with the Pulitzer Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Black Lives Matter at School.” 

As parents and the public have learned of (and rejected) Critical Race Theory and its tenets, CRT’s advocates have begun a rebranding effort. The Zinn Education Project notes: “Although you will not find the phrase ‘critical race theory’ anywhere in the linked materials, you will find that these resources, like CRT, provide a framework for students to understand how racial disparities developed historically and endure today.” 

Whether the applied acronym is CRT, DEI, or something else, the underlying concepts remain the same. 

Conclusion

The Mellon Foundation, while the largest donor to the arts and humanities, is just one of several well-funded groups adopting a postmodernist lens to distort the American story. The activists they bankroll have infiltrated public and private education: our classrooms, museums, and historic sites. The latter two often draw school field trips and family gatherings, and they play a crucial role in how we understand our history and ourselves as a people.

Subscribe Today

Get daily emails in your inbox

Email Address:

The National Monument Audit report is right that monuments and memorials can reflect our values (although not all do—some preserve memory as a warning). But the Mellon Foundation seeks to displace the value of human equality with that of inclusivity. Such a project is fundamentally flawed, steeped in assumptions about power and the importance of identity characteristics. 

This is not a unifying approach and thus has no hope of unifying or enlivening us. Rather, it is the enduring principle that all men are created equal that unites us and that, as Lincoln so eloquently put it, “clears the path for all—gives hope to all—and, by consequence, enterprise, and industry to all.” 

Gillian Richards Augros, a research assistant at The Heritage Foundation's Simon Center for American Studies, contributed to this article.