Overloading of the word "free" here. Contextually you might be meaning anonymous, unannounced, no justification required. Only anonimity would be harmed by requiring ID and in the case of at risk manuscripts, one of a kind, holograph works of significant value, I could see reasons to say "we have a booking system"

are you being reductionist on this, and "demanding" that unconstrained access exist as a norm?

I don't find identified purposeful access objectionable. I am concerned at the amount of degredation to works from constant public access to them: its a thing in european museums, cultural exhibits, lasceaux..

> no justification required

That is the main thing I mean by free.

I agree, requiring ID and even appointments is something that isn't objectionable. The issue I have is requiring a justification. Who approves or dismisses justifications? What's considered an invalid justification?

Unconstrained access isn't what I'm talking about, unjustified access is.

I dislike it when all the normal, common, things this administration does is masqueraded as an egregious affront to freedoms and democracy

When the same energy should have either been applied to all the other administrations

Or only focus on the things that actually are unique

Everything is "unprecedented" when you don't know history.

I'm not at all hostile to "at no charge" access, in fact I fully support it and would be much more upset if the article had been "US Archives decides to charge $100 entry fee" than I was about the actual article "US Archives won't let you in until you register and show ID and give some plausible reason why you need to look at specific things".

I am pretty skeptical of "let random people touch difficult to replace things when you don't know who they are".